Comments by Diane Rufino | Eastern North Carolina Now

Thank You so much Wes. You are far too kind.

Diane Rufino

Commented: Sunday, March 13th, 2022 @ 6:18 pm By: Diane Rufino

Mr. Hickman,
Very well-said. If you have trouble sleeping and need something to get you there, I wrote an article recently on my blogsite ("Forloveofgodandcount ry's Blog) titled "SOLUTIONS FOR AMERICA: How to Preserve the Constitution and the Land of Liberty Our Founding Fathers Gave Us." You can access it at this link: forloveofgodandcountry.com

Commented: Monday, September 27th, 2021 @ 10:56 am By: Diane Rufino

Thanks Alex, but the problem is liberal Democrats. It’s liberal Democrats who don’t know how to be civil or to act respectful to those who voted this president in. I grew up in New Jersey and went to grad school in NYC. Trust me, Trump is not the problem. Intolerant Democrats are.

Commented: Sunday, September 23rd, 2018 @ 11:58 am By: Diane Rufino

Oh, and let's not forget WHY Democrats continue to follow their new playbook - Spread lies and make up allegations of sexual harassment.... Because it works. The politics of PERSONAL DESTRUCTION is something the Democrats have become good at. The politics of spreading lies and instilling fear (including a return to Jim Crow) is something Democrats are good at. Look what it did to Judge Roy Moore. (You don't hear anything any more about his accuser). Look what happened to Mitt Romney in 2012 when he ran for president. During that election, Harry Reid accused Mitt Romney, FALSELY, of not paying his taxes in over 10 years. He knew it wasn't true. After the election, when confronted about his lie and whether he felt remorse for stooping so low, he said no. His response epitomized what the Democratic Party's politics of personal destruction would become: "It worked didn't it? He lost, didn't he?"

Commented: Friday, September 21st, 2018 @ 2:17 pm By: Diane Rufino

Hello Antoinette, Hello Stan,
We need to get away from the mindset that the Supreme Court has the power to render decisions that are correct and that MUST be respected and enforced. As we all know, the federal judiciary, just like the other two branches of the federal government, occasionally abuses its power and interprets the Constitution incorrectly [usually for three reasons: (1) to give the federal government more power, as the government always believes it needs more power; (2) to make law from the bench when Congress refuses to do so; or (3) to effect the social change that voters are unwilling to vote for, or to effect it faster]. All of these reasons are unconstitutional. Technically, legally, constitutionally, an act of government (legislative, executive, or judicial) made in excess or abuse of delegated authority is null and void, and unenforceable. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and NC's James Iredell made this point very clear. The problem is this: The States and We the People give in. In the post-Lincoln era, in the post-Civil War era, the reigning sentiment is that the federal government can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants to, and to whoever it wants. Government knows best. "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." (attributable to Thomas Jefferson, although it is said that no one can actually find that statement among his papers).

I am VERY critical of the Supreme Court and have written many articles on Judicial Activism and the many decisions from the federal courts that are clearly unconstitutional. In fact, I wrote a recent article (March 201 on the Obergefell v. Hodges decision (which is the gay marriage decision, emphasizing the dissenting opinions of the 4 conservative justices - Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts - to prove that the decision is unconstitutional. Each explains WHY the decision is unconstitutional. The article is titled "OBERGEFELL v. HODGES: An Example of the Very Real Tendency of the Federal Courts to Render Unconstitutional Opinions," and can be found on my blogsite - www.forloveofgodandcountry.com. The direct link to the article is here:
forloveofgodandcountry.com

In the Phillips case, I'm pretty sure Kennedy will side with the conservatives. The conservatives do NOT analogize the plight and the discrimination of gays and lesbians to that of African-Americans during the Jim Crow and anti-civil rights era, thank God. You are absolutely right that the analogy is intellectually dishonest and fatally flawed. I think Kennedy will side with the conservatives for 2 reasons:
(1) The Obergefell v. Hodges decision, written by Kennedy himself, made it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, that people who have deeply-held religious beliefs about the definition of marriage must be respected and tolerated. (The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, as well as Colorado's Solicitor General, should have shown discretion according to the Obergefell case and recognized an exception to the Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), just as it recognized exceptions for atheists, Muslims, and African-Americans; and
(2) Kennedy made it clear through his questioning that "tolerance goes two ways" and that the homosexual couple, as well as the state of Colorado, were completely intolerance of the Christian baker, Jack Phillips. In fact, Kennedy pointed out that the Commission went out of its way to punish and prosecute Phillips.

Thanks for your wonderful comments.
Diane Rufino

Commented: Monday, May 7th, 2018 @ 6:18 pm By: Diane Rufino

I used to be the college counselor at an un-Catholic school in Greenville (John Paul II Catholic School. Catholic in name only; the worst people I've ever met; the worst culture of cheating I've ever seen). When the topic of college applications would come up, the white students would say to the black and Hispanic students that they were lucky because they get breaks to get into college. They would joke "We're the only ones that have to rely on our grades." Now, let's look at what that tells us about what our teens are taught (subtly) and what they likely understand. First, they KNOW for a fact that minorities are accepted into colleges with far less grades and credentials than whites. How do they know this? Because they know which of their fellow students have excellent grades and which do not. And then they see that students with lower grades and lower GPAs get into schools when they, with higher grades, do not. Second, they are informed by colleges that they have "a diverse student body" and that they "respect and foster diversity" on their campuses. So, they put two-and-two together and understand that one way they get their diverse student body is by lowering their standards for certain minorities. Thirdly, they must certainly be questioning WHY schools have to lower admissions standards for minorities.That's when they realize that they do so because if they didn't, minorities would not be able to compete equally, on a grade and GPA-basis (merit basis), with white applicants. Then they might also realize that since the school has an actual "policy" for minority applicants, it must be based on something data-driven. There must be enough data to show that minorities score lower on college entrance exams, and have lower GPAs, and hence they need a "handicap" in the admissions review process. Translation: Minorities are not as academically successful or do not perform as successfully as others. Stereotype established for today's teens. (By the way, in all my years in education, both as a student, with my children going thru the public education system, and as a teacher and counselor, everyone understood that Asians and Indians are naturally smarter and would have non problem getting into the colleges of their choice. My third daughter is a mini genius. She took all AP classes in high school and kept an extremely high GPA. I asked her if there was a chance she would graduate at the top of her class and she laughed at me. She said: "Are you kidding. I have Asians in my class." What she was saying is that even as well as she was doing, Asian students just do much better academically. (My daughter graduated 4th in her class, out of 370).

This same daughter was "wait-listed" at NC State when she applied. It blew my mind. As a high school student, she was the most intelligent kid I knew. She ran circles around most other students from her school. How could State not have accepted her outright? Yet a Hispanic student that I know (and taught) was accepted. The difference between my daughter and this other girl was a stark as night and day. On a spectrum of intelligence and ability, my daughter would be at one end (say, Ivy League material) while the other girl was community college material. It was THAT stark of a contrast. And not only in sheer ability either. My daughter is, and has always been, an avid learner, studying all the time and pushing herself. The other girl did everything she could to get out of class and to be responsible for less work (And John Paul II Catholic school administration was all-too-happy to comply). When my daughter found out that this girl was accepted to State, she said: "Mom, that's not fair." As it turns out, my daughter was ultimately accepted; as students who were accepted declined in order to go to other schools, a spot opened up for her. Within one year, my daughter did so outstandingly well that she was invited into the prestigious Mechanical Engineering school. She is one of only a few female students there who can do a certain kind of programming. She took additional courses over the summer (that's how driven she is) and now she is ahead of other students of her grade. Where is the fairness of Affirmative Action programs? Why should spots be given to some simply because of skin color while those who have greater skills and ability be pushed aside?

Again, here is what really bothers me about the Affirmative Action policies at colleges and universities. Students and even adults see a black or Hispanic college student and even at least momentarily, they conclude that most likely, the only way they were accepted was because the school either added additional "handicap" points to their entrance exams or they had lower acceptance criteria for them. If I were a member of either minority group and I knew that college admissions policies had created that presumption, I would feel pretty low about myself. Even if a member of either minority group did have high grades and SAT/ACT scores, and many do, the first impression on others is that they did not. And it is NOT because of any racism or any mal-intentioned heart; it is because of what society and government has re-enforced on our youth. It is a stereotype that they learn by government policies.

This really rubs me the wrong way. So then you have President Obama and Michele Obama and even Hillary Clinton who, for political reasons, tell Americans (including minorities who are often all-too-willing to hear how they continue to be "victims") that every white person is inherently racist, whether they know it or not.. that they are incapable of being color-blind. HOW DARE THEY SAY THAT. The government is racist, their policies are racist, and they are pushing silent or "soft" racism on all of us. And Democrats are the biggest racists of all - calling for policies that give minorities a leg up (by assuming they cannot compete equally or do for themselves what others are capable of). Affirmative Action is a Democratic policy. These policies are in so many areas of public life, it is astounding, including medical schools and law enforcement. There are cases upon cases where minority applicants to police forces win to have standards lowered so that they can be admitted. All they have to do is challenge a particular police force, for example, by saying that there aren't enough "Hispanics" hired. If there aren't enough Hispanics on the force, then it clearly must be that they have discriminatory hiring practices or discriminatory admissions policies to its police academies, they say. Then they look at those practices and policies, which are often designed to weed out unqualified candidates for ones who are qualified for the various tasks that officers must be responsible for. Then they will claim that the practices and policies themselves are inherently racist. So, what these departments end up doing, to either avoid further litigation or to comply with the Civil Rights Act, is to re-do their "exams" and practices and dumb them down tremendously. Often, the standard is this: If Hispanic applicants can't score well, then it MUST be that the tests are racist and mean to prevent Hispanics from doing well.

Sadly, minorities use "racism" to dumb down standards so they can do better, so in a sense, while they accuse others of racism, they love to benefit from it and probably, in some way, need it to continue. Either way, society teaches us that lower standards are associated with minorities.

Commented: Saturday, November 25th, 2017 @ 2:23 pm By: Diane Rufino

Way to go Stan. You may want to do a follow-up article on the Electors. You should interview them and hear their story. They have a very interesting one to tell.

Commented: Wednesday, December 21st, 2016 @ 11:14 am By: Diane Rufino

Someone who regularly reads my articles (on my blogsite - www.forloveofgodandcountry.com) commented on my Memorial Day piece. She asked: "What do you mean by the phrase 'the American flag has stood for oppression?' Can you please enlighten me on that.” And so I attempted to explain. I responded:

Here is what I meant by the phrase "as stood for oppression" (referring to our flag at specific times in our history), and I would respect if you don't agree with me on this: Prior to the 13th Amendment, the American flag stood for the protection of the institution of slavery. I know there are a good many who believe it is/was only the Confederate flag that symbolizes slavery, but people forget that our Constitution [Article I, Section 9 (Powers Prohibited to Congress) and the Fugitive Slave Clause (Article IV, Sec. 2, clause 3) prevented the abolition of slavery or the freedom of those slaves who were not "relieved of service" (discharged from being "property"). Article I, Section 9 prevented the Congress from even thinking about abolishing slavery until at least 1808 and the Fugitive Slave Clause essentially said that "once property, always property," with respect to the slave. Toward the end of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, during the debate over the Privileges and Immunities Clause (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1), Charles Pinckney of South Carolina insisted that there should be some provision included to help secure the property in slaves. I would have never really made mention of this association, chocking it up to a history that has been righted, but in light of this era when people are vilifying the Confederate flag and any name, statue, or symbol associated with the Confederacy of the United States or the pre-Civil War South, I just think people should look at the bigger picture and realize that it wasn't just the South that embraced slavery. The American flag, for several years, stood as a symbol of a slave nation.

The second instance where I believe the American flag stood for oppression was in during the years 1861-1865 when Abraham Lincoln hijacked the full force of the federal government, including the suppression of the media, the suspension of habeas corpus, and especially the conscription of Union soldiers to pursue the invasion of the South in direct violation of the principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence. The oppression I refer to hear is the rejection of that part of the Declaration which reads: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to 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 affect their Safety and Happiness..." Nowhere in the founding of our nation was it understood that government supersedes the inherent right of a people to choose the government of their choosing, and especially when the Southern states copied, step by step, the very sequence of events that the colonies themselves took when they separated from Great Britain. They were, in fact and in legal terms, an independent nation established with all the foundations that define such. Lincoln may have “sold” his agenda to Congress as necessary to “quell the Southern rebellion” but he was merely using smoke and mirrors. He was using terms and definitions that were in direct contradiction to those used by our Framers and Founders to push an unconstitutional war to force the Southern states back into the Union to make ensure the perpetuation of the federal government (terms taken directly from a Senate resolution to retroactively sanction the various constitutional violations by Lincoln). The actions of Abraham Lincoln and the government that was transformed because of them resulted in a paradigm shift in our nation and our understanding of government and the relationship between State and federal government. The oppression I refer to at this point of our history was the oppression forced on Americans by a government that was more interested in its own perpetuation than in respecting the principles upon which it was guided by way of the Declaration of Independence. Over 640,000 young men were killed in a war for a corrupted view of the Constitution and the Union.

I know I don’t take the accepted view of the War for Southern Independence, but then again, I think we haven’t been told the truth about that era of our history for a very very VERY long time. But that is to be expected… The victors always have the benefit and luxury of telling the story, and that means telling it in a way that exonerates them from any culpability and vilifying the vanquished. In the case of the Civil War, the story had to be a real good one because it tore a nation apart and killed more Americans than any other period of our history. Lincoln did more than any other president to create the powerful federal government that we now have to pledge allegiance to which explains why he has the most elaborate monument on the national mall in DC. Thanks to Lincoln, States have become timid and inherent fundamental rights have been lost forever.

Again, this is just my opinion and my point of view. I love my country dearly and believe myself to be blessed beyond measure that of all the places I could have been born in this crazy, turbulent world, I was born here in the United States with a Constitution so brilliant and so grand, with a set of protections in our Bill of Rights to keep government forever at bay, and with a national founding document, the Declaration of Independence, so revolutionary and so inspirational and magnificent that the United Nations itself adopted its language and the language of each the others in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I love, honor, and cherish the American flag, and there are times seeing it and realizing the inspiration it gave our serviceman over the years to the point they were willing to give their lives that I break down in tears.

The American flag so overwhelmingly represents good. It so overwhelmingly represents freedom and liberty and liberation from oppression. But I just wanted to point out, even if briefly, for intellectual honesty, that there were times when it represented a nation that could have done better.

Commented: Monday, May 30th, 2016 @ 10:23 pm By: Diane Rufino

Thank you so much Cheryl for reading my article. If you have time, I hope you'll read (and maybe even share) the Letter I sent to NC Governor Pat McCrory thanking him for signing HB2 and for his support and defense of it. I posted the letter on my blogsite (www.forloveofgodandcountry.com) and on all my FB sites.

forloveofgodandcountry.com

I also sent similar letters to Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest and to all the members of the NC General Assembly who voted for the bill.

By the way, I love your name "cherylkickass." LOL !! You wouldn't happen to be from Jersey, would you?

Diane

Commented: Monday, April 11th, 2016 @ 2:28 pm By: Diane Rufino

For the record, I am not categorically against abortion. I believe a woman needs the freedom and opportunity to terminate a pregnancy that was not planned. I am not naive to the fact that things happen, often out of our control, which we wish we could have prevented. And in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, the consequence has life-altering consequences. I just believe that while an opportunity should be available for women, it should not be abused. A woman should be expected to be able to make a decision about that pregnancy as soon as she learns of her condition. There is a period, as we all know, where the fertilized egg goes through a series of divisions without yet becoming a viable human being. In fact, when the egg is initially fertilized, there is a period of over 24 hours when it just sits there and doesn't even go through its first division. That probably is because maternal and paternal DNA must go through its recombination phase to uniquely determine the genetic make-up of that "child." I believe if we did our jobs as parents and as educators and as church members - without the dictates and mandates of government and the protests of socially promiscuous and degenerative groups - and if we walked them through the process of an abortion along with a discussion of what the long-term emotional effect it will likely have, then we might be able to cut down on the number of women and teens who needlessly put themselves in such a position. Giving life is the most precious gift that God has given to women. Only under the right circumstances can she truly appreciate that gift and that experience.

Commented: Saturday, August 1st, 2015 @ 12:33 pm By: Diane Rufino

Bobby, have you read Ayn Rand's masterpiece, ATLAS SHRUGGED? Have you seen the 3-part movie? In her prophetic story, the government stops protecting individual rights and the rights of capitalists to develop products and industry and take their chances with the marketplace by pursuing the "public good." Policy is made for the public good; property is seized for the "public good." Services MUST be compelled for the "public good." The spirit of the individual dies. There is no societal pressure for exceptionalism or even adequacy. People are entitled to everything, including the products of individual brilliance, hard work, and sacrifice. They are entitled simply because they breathe. “Collective good” will always destroy individual liberty because the rights and property of one will always need to be surrendered for the benefit of others. The rights of one group will always have to give way to a “more justified” or “more expedient” purpose. We are seeing the beginning of this mindset with the current "cultural cleansing" regarding the Confederate flag and now, with all things having to do with the confederacy. For the "good" of society, we need to whitewash history. Yet to others, it might appear that Reconstruction is being enacted all over again and the Southern states are being punished once more for their loyalty to the notion of states' rights. A parade of horribles follows a nation that puts the "public" or "collective" good over the inherent rights of the individual. And that's why the country our founding fathers established is the one we need to restore and protect.

Commented: Sunday, July 12th, 2015 @ 3:46 pm By: Diane Rufino

Gene, I'm not very good at writing very short articles, as you may or may not have already noticed. And I apologize for that. I wish I had more time to write but I'm limited due to the time I have to spend teaching and planning. If you have time, I might suggest that you join the Beaufort Tea Party Patriots when they have constitutional seminars or maybe come visit with my group sometime - the Eastern NC Tea Party, which meets in Greenville. Our first meeting is on Tuesday night, at 6:00 pm at McAllister's Deli (corner of Charles Blvd and Greenville Blvd, which is near the ECU baseball stadium). Our guest speaker will be Philip Law, who will be challenging Walter Jones next year for the congressional seat from our district (3rd district). It will be an informal meeting, since it is the first meeting we've had since last year. Our subsequent meetings will deal with topics and issues, including Nullification and an Article V Convention (Convention of States), Jury Nullification, the Flag v. the 1st Amendment, the Johnson Amendment, Common Core, Gay Rights v. Religious Rights, etc. Thanks so much for reading my article and for all your comments. I appreciate it.

Diane

Commented: Sunday, July 12th, 2015 @ 12:24 pm By: Diane Rufino

Michael, I am encouraged by your response. I'll try not to be so depressed, although the economy is daunting and my chances for a job continue to be very slim. We'll see if things turn around in North Carolina.

New Brunswick is an area I spent a good part of my life in. I moved from East Rutherford to Plainsboro to work at Princeton University. I was going to enter a doctoral program there but the researcher I wanted to work with failed to receive tenure and went to Baylor, in Texas. In hindsight, I probably should have moved to Texas. I stayed in Plainsboro for a few years until I saved up enough to buy an old victorian home in Hightstown. I got married shortly after that, had my 4 kids, and graduated from law school in 2000. After 11 years in Hightstown, we moved to Greenville (just a few days before the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001). I was a successful lawyer in Jersey but it isn't easy finding a position in intellectual property in my area of Pitt County. I enjoyed working at a lab bench in molecular biology and if I had my choice, I would love to be doing that type of work today. Again, there aren't many labs doing genetic engineering research in this area.

In the meantime, I run my Tea Party group, work with the NC Tenth Amendment Center (I'm Deputy Director), and I write. It keeps me active mentally, but not necessarily physically. But I enjoy what I'm doing. I certainly admire you and your wife's generosity with Uncle Sam. While it's nice to take care of so many people with other people's money, and you have no problem with that, there are others that do. And we read about those concerns every day. I've even written about such concerns. There is a fundamental liberty implication in that issue, which as someone who has studied the constitution, causes me great concern. But there is something else that bothers me with the nation's current path and I see it with my own children and with my friend's children. I have 3 daughters and 2 are extremely bright. Both are high honor roll in all honors classes. They study hard and barely leave their desks. My eldest has to work a lot harder for her grades but she tries. All are gravitating to the science and math fields. When they talk about what schools they want to go to and what careers they want to enter, I noticed that they have downgraded their goals. Two wanted to be doctors. They don't want to pursue that path anymore because the health field scares them. With all the apprehension over Obamacare, they don't want to get involved and be regulated and have so much government intervention. They think they will be overwhelmed with paperwork and they think that will frustrate them. So now they are talking about careers with less responsibility and less oversight. It breaks my heart. My best friend's daughter, Diana (named after me !) who just started college, made a painful decision on Wednesday. She told her parents that she planned to scrap her plans for medical school and go into nursing instead. She is an amazingly gifted child who is without any doubt on her way to graduating at the top of her class. She said she didn't want the government to look at her income and tax her just because she happens to be successful. She said something really good - which I hope I can recall it with justice. She said she was changing her major as a matter of principle, even though she was giving up her dream job. She said she would rather make less money and live with a good conscience than make a lot of money and have to live with the reality that a huge chunk would go to the government to support people and policies that offend her. I went to school with her father. We were the big chemistry and math geeks !!

If you live near Pitt County, then we will have to meet someday.

Commented: Friday, November 9th, 2012 @ 10:21 pm By: Diane Rufino

We are a nation of laws. I like to think that we still have a constitutional republic where the Constitution still enshrines the hope of a free people to have a government that has limited powers over their Lives, Liberty, and Property. If government doesn't respect those liberties then we don't have the rights we think we have. It's just smoke and mirrors and we are living a fragile existence as a free nation.

I don't care if we decide to have massive healthcare reform, but it MUST be done according to the laws we established to guide our country, and Obamacare exceeds any power delegated to the federal government by the States.

Commented: Sunday, October 21st, 2012 @ 12:33 pm By: Diane Rufino

There were a series of attacks and events aimed at the US diplomats and officials in Tripoli and Benghazi prior to the killing of Ambassador Chris Stevens on 9/11. These events went back as far as April 2012, and included things like IED devices being hurled into the consular compound, attempted kidnappings and carjackings, attacks on official vehicles with rocket-propelled grenades, and postings on pro-terrorist websites of the routines of US personnel. I believe one of the most recent incidents was a bomb which detonated outside the compound in Benghazi and ripped a hole in the metal fence large enough to cause a major security breach. The UN mission in Libya made several requests to the State Department for increased security in Benghazi and it fell on deaf ears.

The question is, with this hostility and with the growing al quaeda prsesence in Libya - all of which the government knew about - why were our men left there like sitting ducks?

By 9:30am on 9/11, in 2001, Presiden Bush and American officials were already claiming that the attacks on the Twin Towers were a terrorist attacks. By 6:00 pm that evening, President Bush already announced to Americans that it was the work of Osama bin Laden.

Members of Congress are already alleging that the White House is covering up something. Rep. Issa even sent Hillary Clinton a letter demanding to know why her Department ignored a clear pattern of escalating hostitility and security threats and didn't provide additional security.

Commented: Wednesday, October 3rd, 2012 @ 9:38 am By: Diane Rufino

Michael,
Thanks for telling me exactly where you stand on social spending.

I just couldn't imagine all I've gone thru with education, the incredible school loan debt, so many all-nighters, having my long-time boyfriend dump me because he was fed up with my graduate program, missing my 20's because of gradudate school, losing friends because I didn't have the time to keep in touch, missing vacation opportunities, sacrificing time with my parents and my children, building a career, working 60 hours a week and sometimes week-ends, having my children and returning to work right away, putting them in daycare and missing them so much... if I knew I would have to give up what I earned to serve the needs of others. If that were our system, I would have never been as motivated as I was, as ambitious as I was, or willing to make the sacrifices that I did.

I know you've given me statistics to suggest that such a mentality and such a system offers many benefits, but I just don't understand how you advance as a civilization when you don't have a proper reward system.

Sorry you have a wife that doesn't like housework. I have a husband that spends too much time doing things that I should do - that a woman should do. He invades my domain. I'm not cool with that.

Commented: Thursday, July 26th, 2012 @ 12:28 am By: Diane Rufino

Canucks? Is that the term for Canadians? Very cute. Canada has given us most of the great comedians of all time !! Second City TV was Canadian and several members of the cast of Saturday Night Live! were from Canada, including Phil Hartman (one of my all-time favorites) and Mike Myers (Who can ever forget Austin Powers !! We quote from those movies every single day in my house !) Canadians must naturally have a helluva sense-of humor. And Canada gave us Bryan Adams, who I personally bumped into in a hotel elevator and is not much taller than me, and Alannis Morissette. For all those reasons, I LOVE Canada.

For a good chunk of my life, I've had nothing but great experiences with the healthcare in this country. I even volunteered in the emergency ward for several years when I was in my early 20's trying to decide if I wanted to go into the medical profession or into cancer research. I chose the latter. But there is no comparison to the emergency rooms of that era and now. And Americans in general have changed. They engage in more violence (emergency rooms are full of trauma patients; at least here in Pitt County), they eat a lot more fast food, they exercise less (because of the computer and video games), and they are larger now. Over 1/3 of all Americans are obese and a good chunk of them are hugely obese. Obesity has grown rapidly since the late 1990's, especially in the south and mid-west states such as Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Iowa Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. In these states, obesity is the most prevalent. Obesity is highest among blacks and Hispanics are not far behind. These are the groups who are reproducing at the highest rates and those who make up the largest chunk of people living in poverty. Approximately 33% are Hispanic, 25% are black, and 9% are white.

I agree with you that in an ideal world people, are concerned about the well-being of their fellow citizens and would gladly fork over more of their tax dollars to take care of them, but that's not the United States we live in anymore. The dynamics in the country with respect to population and status are changing (as I eluded to above) and there is no feasible way to expect that Americans who work hard can keep up with the demands this brings. This is where religious organizations and other charitable organizations come into play. Government should not legislate charity. It should not FORCE people to surrender their effort and reward to serve others. That is, and I apologize that I have to put it in such terms - slavery. Indentured servitude. Using one person to benefit the other. This is forbidden under the 13 Amendment. The healthcare bill (by its own stated goals) is the forced sacrifice of the young and healthy to serve the benefits of others and therefore legislative slavery. Of course, I exaggerate, but you get the point. We constantly hear that those who make enough should "do their fair share" and pay more and more taxes because too many people are doing without and living in poverty. But the government never asks the poor to do "their fair share" and stop over producing, stay in shape, stop smoking, stay in school, and go to a community college and get some kind of degree or training. If we are supposed to look out for one another, than both sides have to do so.

I also believe as you do that most Americans are an exceptionally industrious people who feel shame when they are unable to support themselves and their loved ones. I firmly believe that most Americans want earned success and want to feel good about themselves. But we all know there are many who feel no such shame. They feel a sense of entitlement rather than a sense of contribution. I've been in high schools where it is clear that students have no intention of trying to learn because they know that a job isn't required to get a check.

It is indeed a shame that we can't do all the things we would like, but again, dynamics are changing. Also, and importantly, the nation was founded on INDIVIDUAL liberty and not on a "guaranteed standard of living." When government provides more than just a temporary safety net, it relieves the individual from his own responsibility over his life and success. It relieves people from the consequences of their conduct, whether it is in not taking education seriously, being sexually active while not married, doing drugs, smoking, or eating poorly and not exercising.

I guess you can tell that I tend to write too much. But finally, I think I will have to agree with you for the most part in your statement that the healthcare decision doesn't really expand the taxing power as profoundly as I led on. Many legal pundits don't think it did at all. I happen to think it set a dangerous precedent to use the taxing power, per se, as Roberts set out, to force people to do as the government wants. I think the decision stands for the bright line rule that the government can do anything it wants, including anything it would have liked to do under the Commerce Clause, by using its taxing power. I also had an issue with him classifying the 'penalty' as an excise tax rather than a direct tax which as you know, would have required the government to apportion among the states according to population. And I was extremely disturbed that Roberts was able to classify the mandate as a tax for Article I purposes but not for the Anti-Injunction Act. It's such legal slight-of-hand that makes it almost impossible to have confidence in the opinion.

But let me tell you why many legal pundits disagree with me (and I do see their point). First, remember during the oral arguments, there was the very brief exchange where all nine justices, and I think even some of the lawyers arguing against the healthcare bill, agreed that the individual mandate could be enforced under the taxing power. But the discussion after that stressed that the government intended the "shared responsibility" payment as a penalty and not a tax. And they went into all the evidence of that intent. Second, the dissenting justices even admitted that the "shared responsibility" payment could have been imposed as a tax. But the problem conservatives have with the decision is whether the Court had the responsibility to frame the bill in terms that the Congress expressly chose not to. Here is what the dissent wrote: “Of course in many cases, what was a regulatory mandate enforced by a penalty could have been imposed as a tax upon permissible action, or what was imposed as a tax upon permissible action could have been a regulatory mandate enforced by a penalty. . . . The issue [here] is not whether Congress had the power to frame the minimum-coverage provision as a tax, but whether it did so." In other words, the fight among the justices was not an epic struggle regarding the extent of the taxation power. It was a rather mundane fight over statutory interpretation, and whether the mandate, as written, could be construed as a tax or not.

The problem with the Court trying to save the Individual Mandate by phrasing it as a "tax" is that the healthcare bill - and specifically, the Individual Mandate - would surely have never passed Congress if it had been expressly framed as a tax.

Well, I think I've bloviated enough here.

Cheers, Friend.

By the way, being a Canuck, do you also happen to have a keen sense of humor? I can't tell from our discourse!

Commented: Saturday, July 21st, 2012 @ 5:20 pm By: Diane Rufino