By Robert Klaus
1. I don't know if the Rappahannock News is really ready for another debate, but I could not leave this cute partisan contortion unanswered ("A Prince…", Comment, RN 13 July, 2017). First, let me commend Mr. Gorfein, who has again demonstrated that he is capable of reading our founding documents. Not a lot of citizens today are aware that the bulk of The Declaration of Independence is an enumeration of England's breaches of contract, which was the legal basis for our decision to separate. Unfortunately, he neglects to first understand those introductory philosophical paragraphs which frame the arguments, so his musings are myopic.
First, he is critical of President Trump's supposed imperious ("rule" not "govern") approach; this without even a blush from a supporter of the guy who ruled by "I don't need Congress; I've got a pen and a phone", violating his own statements of the limits of executive authority.
Hank still has not been able to digest the fundamental premise of The Declaration: EACH person is endowed with God-given rights, and proper government exists to guard THOSE innate rights. (I apologize to those who need a "safe-space" from this language, but the document says "endowed by their Creator.") A government that violates that paradigm is not exercising "just powers". Therefore, this society cannot have taxpayer-financed healthcare, where government forcibly takes one citizen's "pursuit of happiness" and gives it to another citizen; this violates that first-order principle. Hence, "repeal[ing] the ACA" without replacement, bemoaned by Mr. Gorfein, only fulfills the primary tenet of our founding document; it is not a capricious imperious gesture (I wish; the Republican proposals so far all leave swaths of ACA in place.).
The problem conservatives have with the ACA is not only its current implosion, but the precedent of arbitrarily taking citizen's rights, which could be extrapolated to domains even Mr. Gorfein might object to (if 10% of your earnings "should" support someone else's healthcare, why not 25%? 40%? How about for elective rhinoplasty?) Until Mr. Gorfein can appreciate this not-subtle nuance of our government, his other complaints cannot be considered seriously, so I won't bother to challenge the individual merits of his other complaints.
2. ("Trump a Troubled Man", Comment, RN 13 July, 2017) Ms. Bynum needs to visit the Constitution: the House, not the the Senate, prepares articles of impeachment (Article 1, Section 2: right in front! Read it sometime).
The "20 Million Americans" who will be deprived of healthcare (this number varies widely) was assessed a few months ago by the GAO as 14 million, of which 11 million were able-bodied adults without dependent children who had been added to the Medicaid dole in lieu of getting a job and paying for their own healthcare. A large portion of the remainder are, for instance, nuns who don't want abortion coverage, and healthy young males who prefer to pay for a gym membership than for healthcare they won't use. I am sorry if your friends want benefits they don't pay for, but that "want" does not create a "right" for them nor an "obligation" for me.
You complain President Trump is not qualified. The last President, who was a career Community Organizer (!!), was tapped for political promotion by a self-acknowledged and un-repentant terrorist, inserted into State legislature for which his participation was mostly voting "Present" for the half-term he served, promoted to national office by political conniving which torpedoed the opposition at a critical juncture of the campaign (deftly, if not honorably, done), and then spent most of his abbreviated U.S. Senate career campaigning for president. Please explain to me how this individual was more qualified than a man who built very successful businesses in a competitive real estate development market. Embarrassing us to the world? Contrast the un-paralleled reception President Trump received from 50 diverse Muslim-majority nations' rulers to President Obama's deference to the Saudi king. Etc..
I do not believe that you are concerned about the "greater good of this country and of this world"; I believe you are part of a group of people who are OBSESSED (ponder that specific word choice) that the venal, flawed, self-absorbed candidate that the DNC cultivated could possibly have lost. Get over it; participate in the good of the country instead of your choreographed petulance. Or emigrate.
Posts
