Yom Kippur

Arlene from Israel

Tomorrow eve ushers in the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. It is a day of personal soul searching and repentance, which we are told seals our fates for the year ahead. If we have repented and prayed in earnest (and made things right with our fellow human beings, and given charity), by the time the Gates of Repentance close, we can rejoice that we will have been forgiven.

May each of us be sealed for a year of blessing.

Credit: templejudeapbc


Today, then, I will post and — barring something extraordinary — will not do so again until after Yom Kippur. To be whole, sometimes it is essential to turn away from all of the politics and craziness.


My posting yesterday elicited a barrage of comments from readers. Let me be as brief here as I can:

[] I am convinced that it was the Assad regime and not rebels who instituted the gas attack that killed over 1,000. Not only was information with regard to this picked up by Israeli intelligence, the rebels do not possess the equipment to launch an attack of that size. This is not to say that rebels may not possess some wmd

[] I am well aware that over 100,000 have died in Syria’s civil war (not all killed by Assad’s troops, some dead at the hands of the rebels). While this itself is a horror that might have (or should have) been responded to by the international community, I do see use of gas in an attack as qualitatively different. When these weapons, forbidden by humanitarian international law, are brought into play, it is appropriate for the international community to intervene/send a strong message about repercussions. This is particularly important now with Iran on the brink of developing nuclear capacity. If renegade nations imagine they can proceed with impunity, no matter what they do, the world will be in even greater trouble than it already is.

[] I take the issue of deterrence very seriously. From where I sit, here in Jerusalem, I understand very very clearly that it is Israel’s deterrence power that protects us: That is, our enemies know what would be unleashed upon them if they acted against us, or if they crossed a red line that we’ve set.

See this, regarding Israel’s red line:

“Our red lines have not changed,” said an Israeli official [last night]. “Assad should understand already that he should not play around with us on this issue. Our policy has not changed, despite what is happening in the international arena. If something looks to us like an unusual step, it will be dealt with.”


As Obama set a red line regarding the use by Assad of gas, it was imperative for him to respond. Without an appropriate response, the US is seen as a paper tiger, and enemies of the Western world are empowered. I grieve for this state of affairs.

[] I know full well that Obama does not have our back. He would gladly throw us under the bus for any of a variety of reasons. What is important is that our leaders know this, and they do. We will depend on our ourselves, our own deterrence power, and our own mighty military power, which will be released if need be.

[] There are no good guys in Syria. We all understand this. But a case can be made for weakening Assad — if not taking him down — because of his linkage to Iran. His weakness renders Iran less powerful and undercuts support for Hezbollah. What is more, it allows the Iranians to ponder whether they might not be next. Thus, another reason to hit Assad.

[] And then, lastly, as to a weakened America. Yes, I know that this is what Obama prefers. He made that clear from the beginning — he’s an ‘internationalist’ and quick to apologize for the US. He overtly courts the bad guys and works against the (relatively) good ones — as he did with his support of the Brotherhood in Egypt. Time and again I have written about this. I certainly do not delude myself: Not long ago, I shared an enormously powerful expose of his penchant for bringing MB people into the government. He has socialist associations and powerful radical Muslim associations and some exceedingly dubious family relations.

However, I also believe that he’s an incompetent who is way over his head. I do not interpret every single thing he does as part of a sinister and well thought-out comprehensive plot against America, or as part of a conspiracy. He is also a coward who makes stupid decisions, or, perhaps more accurately, prefers not to make decisions. He is not equipped to be in the White House. I may be wrong. But as we do not know with certainty that his every act — however bumbling and cowardly it seems — is really part of a deliberate plot to destroy America, I will not write as if I know this to be the case. Whatever evidence it pleases various readers to send me, I expect that I will continue to write as I have been.

I will add now that Putin, who is as wily as they come, with his old KGB skills, is running rings around Obama. What we’re witnessing is not a case of Obama being “smart” in his intentions to make the US weak. In terms of maneuvering the situation, Putin simply has Obama considerably outclassed and it’s a pathetic sight.

I will continue to follow this…


But now on to another situation, another concern: Our relationship with the PA and how the “negotiations” are going.

It’s not simply a matter of the Palestinian Arabs not having good intentions with regard to truly negotiating a “two state solution.” It has become quite clear that they — as wily as they also are — are attempting to use the pretense of negotiations to squeeze Israel into a corner. Here, again, what matters is the strength of our leadership.

It was specified within the terms of the negotiations that only Kerry would make public announcements about what was transpiring As was fully expected, the PA is not playing by the rules and is using leaks for its own purposes. Israeli officials have been badly irked by this, and have registered protests. Whether they’ll do more than protest (e.g., refuse to release additional prisoners) remains to be seen.

Here I share what Khaled Abu Toameh (pictured below) wrote this week in “Peace Talks: What Is Behind the Palestinian Message?” (emphasis added):

“The officials who have been talking…include the chief PLO negotiator, Saeb Erekat, PLO Secretary-General Yasser Abed Rabbo, PLO Executive Committee member Wasel Abu Yusef and Fatah Central Committee member Nabil Sha’ath.

“Others have also been briefing reporters ‘on condition of anonymity’ — in violation of understandings reached with the Americans…

“…the Palestinian officials’ comments about Israeli ‘intransigence’ and ‘arrogance’ are aimed at paving the way for holding Israel fully responsible for the failure of the peace talks. The message that the Palestinian officials are trying to send out to their own people and the international community is that the Israeli government, contrary to its public stance, is not interested in peace.

“By sounding the alarm bell already, the Palestinians are hoping that when the talks fail they will be able to tell the world, ‘You see, we told you from the beginning that these Israelis do not want peace’…

“Asked why the Palestinians are not making good their threat to walk out of the ‘unproductive’ talks, a senior Palestinian official explained: ‘We cannot pull out at this stage because of American and European pressure. We will continue with the talks for six to nine months in order to show the world in the end that Israel is not interested in peace.’

“For now, the Palestinian Authority’s strategy is to continue talking while at the same time blaming Israel for the lack of progress.

“Palestinian officials are hoping that by the time the talks fail, the world would have absorbed their message: namely, that the Israelis are not interested in peace. The Palestinian Authority’s next step would be to seek international intervention and pressure to force Israel to accept all its demands, including a full withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines.”


Credit: camera


Now, I ask you to consider very carefully what is described here, for this is the routine pattern of PA officials: They do not take a stance. They take it again and again every few minutes. How many times have you read about Abbas demanding that we return to the “’67 border.”? It’s because he has said it perhaps ten thousand times that the world has absorbed this terminology as if it were truth.

What I suggest here, and what I hope to focus on in the weeks and months ahead, is the need for us to emphasize the facts, again and again and again. To talk about our rights until an obtuse public begins to absorb the reality of those rights. “The ’67 line was only a temporary armistice line. When Jordan signed the armistice agreement with Israel in 1949, it was agreed that the line would not prejudice final negotiations on a permanent border.” “The ’67 line was only a temporary armistice line.” “The ’67 line was only…” In talks, and op-eds and radio call in shows, and talk-backs on the Internet. Time to take the offense across the board. We’ve been too passive, too Western, in dealing with people who readily distort truth.


At the same time that the Palestinian Arabs are stepping up their propaganda war, they are also heating matters up with regard to violence.

Al-Aksa Brigades, the “military” arm of Fatah (the PA’s majority party), has announced that as of this Friday they will once again be endorsing terror acts against Israelis. Why?

“The invasion of the compound by hordes of settlers, and the harm to [Muslim] worshipers, with no intervention from the international community.”


Something else to deal with in the weeks and months ahead. Mark my words: the Temple Mount is at the heart of the battle for this land. While Muslims have chosen to behave as if it is exclusively theirs, Jewish leaders and some rabbis have been encouraging more frequent Jewish visitation to the Mount, to make a clear declaration of the Jewish claim to this holiest of sites.

I urge every Jew, whether a resident of Israel or a visitor, to go up on the Mount, with an appropriate and knowledgeable guide.

Credit: holylandphotos


Friday, with everything else, is also the twentieth anniversary of the Oslo Accords, that ill-begotten diplomatic error — founded on dreams rather than reality — that has brought us so much grief.

I share here an article Tourism Minister Uzi Landau (Yisrael Beitenu) has just written on this subject (emphasis added):

“Twenty years after this agreement was signed, we must admit that it has been a historic failure.

“The Oslo vision stated that in the New Middle East, there would be no more wars, that the conflict was not about the existence of Israel, but about territory. It claimed that if we would just give the Palestinians a state, there would be peace.

“We took Arafat the terrorist and transformed him into a partner for peace. The Palestinians are no longer our enemies who want to kill us, but our neighbors. And terrorists became ‘freedom fighters’ who were protesting the ‘occupation,’ the cause of their terror. The Israeli people were told that a peace agreement would bring security, instead of security bringing peace. And above all, if no agreement was reached, then we would be the guilty party because we did not give up enough. We were promised a day of celebration, but instead it turned out to be a day of mourning. Instead of sanctifying life, we’ve buried our dead and cared for our crippled and injured.

“In retrospect, the Oslo Accord does not reflect political wisdom or even a calculated risk. It was simply a dangerous gamble.”

We’re headed down a slippery slope if we continue as we’ve been going. Says Landau, “a Palestinian state should not be allowed to be formed under the current circumstances.” What he proposes is a long-term interim agreement — “based on facts on the ground” — “that would allow the Israelis and Palestinians to live side by side and address any security problems and implement any necessary economic improvement.”



I wouldn’t go where he is going. I see it as also dangerous, because the Palestinian Arabs are encroaching daily on Area C; the land is ours and must be safeguarded. But I give him credit for renouncing Oslo as a possibility and seeking another alternative. That’s the beginning of new thinking: seeking other alternatives.

Landau is now the second minister in the government, albeit not nearly as powerful as Moshe Ya’alon, to come out within only days against the formation of a Palestinian state, even as the government is still involved in those negotiations.

What we are seeing, just possibly, is that certain elements within the government are beginning a campaign of truth telling: This will not work!


And so my last word before Yom Kippur on this political subject is that it does appear we’re in for changes. In 2009, Prime Minister Netanyahu gave his “Bar Ilan speech,” in which he embraced a “two state solution.”

It has now been announced that he will be speaking at Bar Ilan University again on October 6, at the opening of the 20th anniversary international conference of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.

His talk: “The State of Israel’s Challenges, 2020 Vision: Israel’s Perils and Prospects.”

It would definitely appear then that the Palestinian Arabs will not have the last word; they may have imagined that they were operating in a vacuum, but they most decidedly are not. “2020 Vision” implies that our prime minister is seeing matters clearly. Let us pray that this really is the case.

Maariv has said that the prime minister’s speech “will have a significant impact on government policy regarding the Palestinian issue in the coming years.”


I will not share here rumors I’ve heard, which are very tentative, and suggest half-way solutions. We will have to wait until October.

And now? Let us pray that Netanyahu will be guided by Heaven, to come to a place that is good for the people of Israel.


Equal Protection Under the Law

By: T F Stern
T F Stern’s Rantings

In this day and age there are very few who can honestly say they comprehend the meaning of the phrase, Equal Protection Under the Law. Simply put it means that everyone gets treated the same way regardless of race, religion, gender or as now seems to be the trend, regardless of which political party you support.

I tossed that last one in because it has over shadowed the legitimacy of our government for quite some time. It goes back to an ancient philosophy, “To the victor go the spoils”; but in a constitutional republic how much is considered ‘for the taking’?

Take for example the massive piece of legislation ObamaCare, perhaps one of the single most un-American bills to have ever come into existence. Thousands of pages written in such a way as to be intentionally misleading and divisive and yet the Supreme Court held that it was constitutionally sound. Makes you wonder if these black robed folks were the same ones who stood watch over Titanic, “No problems here, Sir, full steam ahead”.

There’s a news headline on Fox, Republicans move to halt ObamaCare ‘bailout’ for angry unions which illustrates how this legislation, as well as many others which have been passed, rewards certain segments of society at the expense of others. In plain language, redistribution of wealth or pure socialism; hardly what our nation was ever intended to become.

“…reports have surfaced on a plan that would give union workers — and only union workers — subsidies to help pay for health insurance even if they’re covered through their job. The purported “carve-out” could soothe the simmering discontent within Big Labor. The loyal Democratic supporters and early champions of ObamaCare say they have been slighted by the act’s final regulations, which they say is pushing some employees into part-time work and threatens their health insurance plans.”

If we are to accept any legislative efforts as constitutional they must pass a litmus test if you will, a test to see if the legislation fits within the limitations placed on government in order to protect all individual’s God given rights.

Ezra Taft Benson’s talk, The Proper Role of Government, defined the limitations we’ve placed on government as well as any other explanation prior to or after he gave that inspired message.

“The important thing to keep in mind is that the people who have created their government can give to that government only such powers as they, themselves, have in the first place. Obviously, they cannot give that which they do not possess. So, the question boils down to this. What powers properly belong to each and every person in the absence of and prior to the establishment of any organized governmental form? A hypothetical question? Yes, indeed! But, it is a question which is vital to an understanding of the principles which underlie the proper function of government.”

Within the text of Benson’s talk he quoted some of the finest political philosophers of all time, to include John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Frederick Bastiat and James Madison to name a few. The foundations of our constitutional republic reside in our founding documents, documents which reflect the wisdom of these men as they considered the relationship of civilized men within a self governed and ordered society.

John Locke wrote nearly 300 years ago:

“For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life of property of another.” (Two Treatises of Civil Government, II, 135; P.P.N.S. p. 93)

Benson elaborated on Locke’s truism:

“This means, then, that the proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act. By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by man. No man possesses such power to delegate. The creature cannot exceed the creator.”

These basic principles of government apparently are not well known, at least by members of Congress who enact legislation contrary to or indifferent to limitations our constitution has placed on the government ‘We The People’ have established. The Supreme Court has declared itself the final arbiter of law, as if they somehow have attained elite status and abilities which places them above the limitations of our constitutional republic.

Getting back to the article about Big Labor Union members being unhappy with ObamaCare and how it does not cover all Americans equally under the law; the entire purpose of the bill was to redistribute wealth from those who have ‘enough and then some’ to those who need a helping hand, or as has been observed with far too many federal programs, those who would prefer others paid regardless of actual need. Big Labor Union members who originally backed ObamaCare are upset, not because the bill was terrible to begin with; but because they’ve found out they’re on the side that has to pay for it all instead of getting a free ride.

Social Justice is a term which has been bandied about of late; a method of altering the outcome of today based on a secret formula, a formula known only to the elite, which presumes that those who are successful, (define successful), did so at the expense of those less fortunate and need to be penalized for taking unfair advantage. Social Justice, or redistribution of wealth is the basis of most federal welfare programs. It has little to do with helping the less fortunate achieve higher levels of competitive skills to become self sustaining; rather it enslaves everyone and eventually destroys all incentives, both for the producers as well as those on the dole.

In the case of ObamaCare, the lure of unbelievably low cost health care was used to hook those who are struggling to attain the ‘American Dream’ while making the successful among us help the less fortunate by making them feel guilty for not jumping on board. ObamaCare is destroying the American Dream by micro-managing every aspect of business and individual liberty.

I should add my two cents worth here; I was taught that the American Dream was obtaining self sufficiency, to stand on your own. The ability to make it happen on your own is the American Dream, or at least that’s how I see it.

Then there’s a progressive version of the American Dream which equates home ownership, two cars in the garage, a large screen HD television, cell phones capable of high speed internet along with full coverage health insurance as if these were natural rights. The latter version would also have you believe that the American Dream, as presented, is promised to all without regard for having earned any of these amenities; in other words pure socialism.

Businesses are now penalized for being successful, penalized to the point where it becomes advantageous to be less successful, have fewer full time employees eligible for ‘Cadillac’ health insurance plans while at the same time opening part time positions which are not penalized by the edicts of ObamaCare; everyone loses as the socialization of America is put into practice.

If you recall, prior to ObamaCare roughly 85 percent of Americans had health insurance to cover their basic needs with only 15 percent requiring government to step in and maintain minimal health requirements. These 15 percent were being taken care of by local measures such as county hospitals or other philanthropic organizations. 100 percent of Americans are now enslaved to ObamaCare and all the unintended consequences of pure socialism.

The progressive movement seized upon the notion of guaranteeing affordable health care to everyone, as if it were a natural God given right. If examined in detail the entire package was nothing more than a bald faced lie from the get go. The Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) was, from its inception, part of a greater agenda to alter the political foundations of America from being a constitutional republic transforming it into a socialized totalitarian government where the elite distributed all aspects of social needs at the expense of individual liberty.

Now that ObamaCare has become the law of the land everyone is wondering, “How can I best survive or prosper under the new rules?” Since those rules are hidden within thousands of pages, are intentionally deceptive and favor only those who are on the receiving end at the expense of those who produce, then it becomes painfully clear that ObamaCare does not fit within the limitations of our constitutional framework.

Labor Union members thought they were exempt from the massive costs associated with paying for ‘free healthcare’ so they jumped on board supporting ObamaCare. They have slowly come to the realization that laws enacted which provide preferential treatment to one segment of society at the expense of another are just as easily twisted in such a way as to entrap the formerly exempted.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are God given rights. Health care is not; it’s an entitlement program and, as with all entitlement programs, the elite get to decide who receives and who pays. This is a hard pill to swallow; but the lies of socialism sound better than self governance to those being rewarded with the fruits taken by force from those who actually earned it through their labors.

ObambaCare was never intended to serve everyone equally; it’s a redistribution of wealth scheme, only much more sinister as it enslaves an entire nation in one fell swoop.

There’s a line in the Alabama state constitution which comes as near to perfection regarding the proper role of government as can be had.

“That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression.”

Sadly, America, more specifically, those we have elected or appointed have ignored constitutional restraints placed on government in favor of entitlement programs which temporarily seem to improve the lives of the less fortunate. There’s no such thing as a free ride or lunch, somebody has to pay and eventually expenses mount, as they always do, and expenses have far exceeded the ability to pay. Whether this exceptional debt was unforeseen or part of a combination of seditious actions intended to alter our path towards pure socialism will be of little solace once our nation crumbles and self destructs.

We have passed that point by several trillion dollars and yet there are those who continue demanding entitlements they have not earned, believing such entitlements are the same as God given rights.

Let’s get back to equal protection under the law; that system actually worked and would still work if we used it.


Confessions of a Racist

By: Citizen Scribe

Hi, my name is Scribe, and I’m a racist.

I’m a racist because I oppose high taxes.

I’m a racist because I believe that the government should not control private businesses or private lives.

I’m a racist because I believe in the greatness of America, despite the blunders of those who govern her.

I’m a racist because I believe in the conservation of the Constitution.

I’m a racist because I detest communism and fascism and all other forms of total government.

I’m a racist because I believe that when someone identifies himself as an enemy, you should take him at his word.

I’m a racist because I believe that same principle applies to nations.

I’m a racist because I believe it is wrong to fund your enemies.

I’m a racist because I believe that “equality” applies to opportunity, not outcomes.

I’m a racist because I believe that “equality” applies to the application of laws, even to those who write them.

I’m a racist because I believe that a man’s worth is found in what he produces, not in the amplitude of his emotions.

I’m a racist because I believe that what a man produces and earns belongs to him, and not to someone who claims to “need” it.

I’m a racist because I believe that it is wrong to confiscate a man’s earnings because you think you’ll spend it better than he will.

I’m a racist because I believe that the sole purpose of education should be to effect competence in life, and not to inculcate a belief system.

I’m a racist because I want my leaders and legislators to tell the truth and keep their promises.

I’m a racist because I believe that art should serve morality and decency, not strive to tear them down.

Mostly, though, I’m a racist because I believe that color doesn’t matter and that character is everything.

I realize that my racism is a serious character flaw, and I’m working on it. Trouble is, every time I look at history and realize the horrific damage done by governments seeking to control everything, I find at least one more thing to be racist about.

In fact, I’m only now beginning to realize how racist it is for me to believe that God is not a sub-atomic particle.


I guess the only comfort I’m going to find is among other racists like myself.


Our national disaster called Obamacare. From the ‘Death Panels’ to the privileged parties, a Democratic Boondoggle.

By: Nelson Abdullah
Conscience of a Conservative

Barack Hussein Obama has issued some 15 executive changes to his monumental catastrophe called Obamacare, without consent of Congress since he signed it into law three years ago. Seems every time some group of his die-hard supporters feels they have been left out of the feeding troth gravy train, as soon as they complain, Obama issues a decree giving them a handout. A headline story in the news today confirms the suspicions I wrote about just nine days ago. Obama is concerned about the criticism his Socialized Medicine Plan //aka// the Affordable Care Act, often called Obamacare is getting. Here is the headline story and a reprint of my post from September 3rd.

Republicans move to halt ObamaCare ‘bailout’ for angry unions
Published September 12, 2013

Capitol Hill Republicans are trying to stop the Obama administration from offering labor unions a sweetheart deal on ObamaCare, as the White House tries to quell a simmering rebellion from Big Labor over the health care law.

President Obama and White House officials reportedly have called union leaders to try and persuade them to tone down their complaints, pledging an accommodation. The AFL-CIO, though, on Wednesday approved a resolution anyway calling the law “highly disruptive” to union plans.

But reports have surfaced on a plan that would give union workers — and only union workers — subsidies to help pay for health insurance even if they’re covered through their job. The purported “carve-out” could soothe the simmering discontent within Big Labor. The loyal Democratic supporters and early champions of ObamaCare say they have been slighted by the act’s final regulations, which they say is pushing some employees into part-time work and threatens their health insurance plans.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/12/hill-republicans-launch-pre-emptive-strike-on-union-subsidies-for-obamacare/#ixzz2ei3iurkI

Conscience of a Conservative, Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Major change coming to Obamacare: Anyone who voted for or supported BO will receive an exemption.

Obamacare, officially known as the Affordable Care Act, was written with explicit language that it was to include everyone. No exceptions. Even members of Congress and their staff were mandated to follow the same rules as every other American citizen. This was apparently done to appease the Republicans and get their support for the bill. Then just before the 2012 elections several unions who had endorsed and campaigned for Barack Hussein Obama began to receive exemptions from the mandatory requirements. Then it was disclosed that members of Congress were concerned that their highly paid staff members would be persuaded to leave their cushy jobs if they had to pay for their own health insurance, like everyone else. So our Great Leader issued a decree that made them exempt and the government would continue to provide their insurance. Now we read that 40,000 union members have quit the AFL-CIO because they don’t like the idea of having to pay for their health insurance.

40,000 Longshoreman Quit AFL-CIO Blaming ObamaCare

In what is being reported as a surprise move, the 40,000 members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) announced that they have formally ended their association with the AFL-CIO, one of the nation’s largest private sector unions. The Longshoremen citied Obamacare and immigration reform as two important causes of their disaffiliation.

In an August 29 letter to AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, ILWU President Robert McEllrath cited quite a list of grievances as reasons for the disillusion of their affiliation, but prominent among them was the
AFL-CIO’s support of ObamaCare.

“We feel the Federation has done a great disservice to the labor movement and all working people by going along to get along,” McEllrath wrote in the letter to Trumka.

The ILWU President made it clear they are for a single-payer, nationalized healthcare policy and are upset with the AFL-CIO for going along with Obama on the confiscatory tax on their “Cadillac” healthcare plan.

What isn’t a surprise is that almost immediately after this announcement, some union leaders asked Obama to also exclude them from the mandatory coverage requirement. And it looks like they will get it. So what it all comes to is that the only people who will be forced to buy health insurance will be people who didn’t support or vote for Obama. In other words, Obamacare is really just a tax on Republicans.

In order to get Obamacare passed through Congress, then Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi famously remarked, “You have to pass the bill before you can see what’s in it.” But even when the bill was being written it had parts added for the expressed purpose of persuading certain groups from opposing it. Like the powerful NRA gun lobby. Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid inserted a clause in ACA that reversed a previous order to have family Physicians inquire if their patients had a gun in their house. Following the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, Obama issued his 23 Executive Orders to formulate Gun Control and one of those orders retracted the clause in Obamacare that Harry Reid inserted and once again, family doctors will be asking their patients if they own a gun. And since all medical records will be electronically stored and accessed by the government, anyone who admits they have a gun will be easily identified.

The true nature of Barack Hussein Obama’s government is becoming clearer and clearer every day. He admits he doesn’t need Congress to pass his laws, he can issue them by Executive Order. The Constitution is just an inconvenient piece of paper to him. He ignores and changes written laws to please himself and his friends and his supporters by issuing his Royal Decrees and Exemptions. It would not be surprising to learn he has a plan to remain in office after the end of his present term. And yes, there is a word for that, its called Dictator.

My name is Nelson Abdullah and I am Oldironsides.

Meanwhile, the rest of the public, those lucky to just have a job, have been facing changes in their own healthcare coverage by their employers. Loopholes in the Affordable Care Act exempt employers from certain requirements for their part-time workers who work less than 30 hours a week. So they have been cutting the hours of full-time workers to make them part-time workers. Other companies are dropping spouses from their company health care plans. Bloomberg reported that two of America’s largest employers, General Electric and IBM announced they are cancelling healthcare plans for retirees.

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin, former Governor of Alaska and Vice-Presidential candidate in 2008, recently called for Congress to “bomb Obamacare instead of Syria”. Sarah Palin was roundly criticized in 2009 for attacking Obamacare on her Facebook page for the creation of “death panels”, a term that incensed almost every journalist and Democrat.

As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we’re saying not just no, but hell no!

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.

Now, three years later, everyone is acknowledging those “death panels” are real. As this article in The Hill reported, even prominent Democrats are admitting that it is true, the “death panels”, an unelected group, officially called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, who will decide who get approved treatments and who will be denied, does exist. The technical issue that existed three years ago used to deny the truth was that this board was not a part of the legislation that created Obamacare, it had been added to another bill that passed months before.

ObamaCare ‘death panel’ faces growing opposition from Democrats
By Elise Viebeck – 08/08/13 05:00 AM ET

ObamaCare’s cost-cutting board — memorably called a “death panel” by Sarah Palin — is facing growing opposition from Democrats who say it will harm people on Medicare.

Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean drew attention to the board designed to limit Medicare cost growth when he called for its repeal in an op-ed late last month.

Dean was quickly criticized by supporters of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), who noted his ties to the healthcare industry as an adviser to a major D.C. lobbying firm.

But the former Vermont governor is not the only Democrat looking to kill the panel.

A wave of vulnerable Democrats over the past three months has signed on to bills repealing the board’s powers, including Sen. Mark Pryor (Ark.) and Reps. Ron Barber (Ariz.), Ann Kirkpatrick (Ariz.), Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) and Elizabeth Esty (Conn.).

All five are considered vulnerable in next year’s election, highlighting the stakes and the political angst surrounding the healthcare measure.

Read more here: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/316045-obamacare-cost-cutting-board-faces-growing-opposition-from-democrats#ixzz2eiAoqwXL

Sarah Palin was right in 2009 and is right again in 2013, and so was every other conservative who criticized this law. Obamacare is a disaster and it is not good for our nation’s health or for the health of our citizens. It may even have been planned that way on purpose from the beginning.

My name is Nelson Abdullah and I am Oldironsides.


Assad Is More Believable than Obama

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

In his interview with Charlie Rose, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad said there was “not a single shred of evidence” that his regime used chemical weapons. During his Tuesday night speech to the nation, Obama offered none. As the Associated Press noted, “President Barack Obama voiced his conviction Tuesday night that Syrian President Bashar Assad was to blame for deadly chemical attacks against civilians, but again he offered no proof.”

Assad said the Obama Administration “doesn’t have” the evidence. “If they had it, they would have presented it to you as media from the first day,” he said.

Jake Tapper on CNN said, “I don’t like agreeing with Assad, but he’s right. The American people have seen no evidence tying the chemical weapons attack directly to Assad.”

Charlie Rose said to Assad: “…some have suggested that it [U.S. military strikes] might tip the balance in the favor of the rebels and lead to the overthrow of your government.” Assad replied, “Exactly. Any strike will be as direct support to al-Qaeda offshoot that’s called al-Nusra, Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic state of Iraq and Syria. You’re right about this. It’s going to be direct support.”

Obama acknowledged on Tuesday that, “It’s true that some of Assad’s opponents are extremists,” but went on to claim that “…al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death.”

He was careful not to explicitly admit that these “extremists” include al Qaeda and that his policy was designed to benefit them.

A new report, “Jihadist Terrorism: A Threat Assessment,” points out that al Qaeda in Syria “is focused on overthrowing the Assad regime” and that it is “able to garner considerable support from Syria’s Sunni population…” It is not motivated by alleged chemical weapons attacks and a “chaotic” situation in the country, as Obama claimed.

In fact, investigative journalist Ken Timmerman reports that the evidence actually shows the rebels were behind the attacks. He says, “…intelligence reports from French and Jordanian military intelligence show that the jihadist al-Nusra front rebels acquired similar rockets and chemical agents earlier this year when they overran a chemical weapons depot in Aleppo on May 17 and captured a rocket unit in Daraa not long afterward, sources privy to the intelligence tell me.”

He adds, “Those intelligence reports concluded there was a strong likelihood the rebels had carried out the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attacks either deliberately or by accident.”

Former CIA officer Larry Johnson reports, “My friends in the CIA are still around and they are now warning me that both the United States and the United Kingdom know that Bashar Assad is not responsible for the incident on 21 August that killed and maimed Syrian civilians. While it is true that a chemical of some sort caused the fatalities and injuries, it was not the result of an attack by the Syrian Army using military quality chemical weapons from the Syrian arsenal. The CIA knows that this is the case yet, with John Brennan at the head of the Agency, is deliberately lying and misleading members of Congress, the media and the public.”

Obama said on Tuesday, “So even though I possess the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take this debate to Congress.”

But since the War Powers Act actually prohibits military action unless there is a direct or imminent threat to the U.S., Obama does not have the authority he claims.

Obama had previously told PBS, in regard to justifying a military strike on Syria, that chemical weapons “can have devastating effects [which] could be directed at us. And we want to make sure that that does not happen.”

On Tuesday, however, Obama did not raise that concern. Instead, he said: “The Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military. Any other retaliation they might seek is in line with threats that we face every day.”

Obama also said on Tuesday that “The Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons, and even said they’d join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use.” The implication was that Obama’s threats forced the Syrians to make that admission.

In fact, Syria admitted having these weapons over a year ago, and pledged not to use them in the civil war. Syria’s then-Foreign Ministry spokesman, Jihad Makdissi, told reporters, “Any stock of WMD or unconventional weapons that the Syrian Army possesses will never, never be used against the Syrian people or civilians during this crisis, under any circumstances.”

Obama isn’t the only liar in this unfolding debacle. The rebels are also spewing out disinformation.

On Monday night Najib Ghadban, a representative of the National Coalition Of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces, appeared on The Lead with Jake Tapper and claimed that 120,000 Syrians have been “killed by this regime.” In fact, 43 percent of the fatalities are said to be pro-government combatants.

Tapper said Ghadban “meets regularly with the White House, National Security Council and State Department.” He is an associate professor of political science and Middle East studies at the University of Arkansas. His bio says, “He has contributed political commentaries to several U.S., European, and Middle East media outlets, including Al Jazeera.”

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected].