RUTHFULLY YOURS

Today, the heavy burden of taxes is clearly a major drag on our country’s economy. The U.S. now has the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world. In 1913, the total number of pages in the tax code was only 400. Today, it’s 73,954.

Amid all the attention paid to the government shutdown — more of a “slimdown,” as 83 percent of the government remains open — few people noticed that last Friday, October 4, marked the 100th anniversary of the federal income tax. The size and intrusiveness of the federal government that is at the heart of today’s shutdown would never have been possible without the income tax.

For a century and a quarter, the United States avoided an income tax. Thomas Jefferson warned against such “internal” taxes, saying that under the British they had “filled our land with officers and opened our doors to their intrusions.” Until the early 20th century, a small federal government relied on import duties and taxes on alcohol and tobacco for most of its revenue.

Congress passed an income tax to fund the Civil War in 1862 but allowed it to expire a decade later. In 1894, it passed another — a 2 percent flat-rate income tax that kicked in at today’s equivalent of $110,000. It was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because it was not apportioned among the states, as the U.S. Constitution required.

Then, during the Progressive era, supporters of the tax passed the 16th Amendment, giving Congress the power to tax income, and in 1913 Congress approved a tax with a series of rates ranging from 2 to 7 percent. But high personal exemptions meant that fewer than one out of every 50 Americans owed any tax at all.

The Egyptian military’s recent removal from office of Egyptian President Mohammad Morsi “was not a coup,” judged the former United States Air Force lieutenant colonel and Middle East expert Rick Francona, but rather the “people rising up.” Francona spoke at Washington, DC’s National Press Club during an October 1, 2013, panel featuring national security experts who had just completed a three-day visit on behalf of the Westminster Institute. The panel expressed dismay that the United States was not properly responding to developments in country described by Westminster Institute executive director Katherine Gorka as “pivotal” to American interests in the region.

Retired United States Army Major General Paul E. Vallely referenced a popular Egyptian understanding of Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood (MB) government’s fall as a “second revolution” following the “first revolution” ousting Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak. Katherine’s husband, counterinsurgency expert Sebastian Gorka, noted that a petition presented to Morsi calling for early elections had gathered 22 million signatures. Subsequently an estimated 33 million had taken to the streets to call for Morsi’s removal in early July 2013 in a country of 85 million.

Vallely’s army colleague, the former colonel and military commentator Ken Allard, discussed a popular Egyptian perception of MB as “terrorists” given their treatment of women and minorities. Francona in particular cited anti-Christian violence by MB supporters that destroyed 1,000 Christian homes after Morsi fell. Allard likewise discussed the delegation’s meeting with the Coptic Church’s Pope Tawadros II, a man “who watched his churches burn.” Many Egyptians additionally felt that the MB in power merely “governed for themselves,” Sebastian Gorka related.

As a result, the Egyptian military commander General Abdul Fattah al-Sisi spoke of a “civil war” absent Morsi’s removal in a meeting with Gorka and the other panelists. This was particularly true given that there was “no impeachment vehicle” in the old Egyptian constitution, as Vallely noted, a provision now contemplated for a new constitution. The “Egyptians are more united in” supporting the military’s actions “than we might think,” Francona judged. Everyone with whom the delegation spoke similarly surprised Sebastian Gorka because they “sounded like they were coordinating their message” but were not.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/obamas-disarmed-diplomacy?f=puball

In the past month, Americans have been led to believe that President Obama has achieved diplomatic breakthroughs with Syria and Iran, thereby avoiding looming conflicts with those two rogue states. If the result being promised is not exactly “peace in our time,” the White House certainly is encouraging the notion that its robust threats of military action against these allied enemies brought them to the negotiating table.

Regrettably, this proposition does not stand up to scrutiny. Far from a Reaganesque policy of “peace through strength” and the practice of what historian Henry Nau calls “armed diplomacy” that it has made successful in the past, Team Obama is engaged in disarmed diplomacy. The results will, predictably, be disappointing and probably quite dangerous.

For example, with help from his Russian protectors, Syrian dictator Bashir Assad has now bought himself protection against any strike the United States might still be capable of mounting by promising to eliminate his chemical stockpiles. No amount of officially professed U.S. “skepticism” or watered-down UN resolutions can obscure an unhappy fact: Assad’s regime is not owning up to all of its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction – which includes not only more chemical weapons than it has declared, but untold quantities of deadly biological weapons, as well.
Meanwhile, as international inspectors – not a few of whom will be Russians who can be expected to run interference for their client – prepare for the hazardous, if not impossible, job of finding and eliminating all of what the Syrians have squirreled away, Assad will have a free hand to fight his Islamist and other enemies at home with conventional means. Obama’s arming of Assad’s foes, and ours, inside Syria will probably simply ensure that civil war goes murderously on for quite some time.

The recent revelation that New York City mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio supported Nicaragua’s Sandinista military government in the 1980s is a reminder of the high cost Latin America pays for being the playground of the American left. It should also further enlighten New Yorkers as to the politics of the man who is the front runner in the race.

The ideas of the hard left don’t sell very well in the U.S., so collectivists take them south of the Rio Grande where they believe the ground is more fertile. Their arrogant paternalism ignores the rights of the people they pretend to redeem.

By 1988, when Mr. de Blasio went to Nicaragua to do social work in support of the Marxist revolutionary cause, the Sandinistas had been running the country for almost a decade. Their brutality was well-documented. Mr. de Blasio, who also did fundraising for supporters of the military government, either didn’t know about Sandinista repression or he didn’t care.

It’s hard to believe it was the former. My requests for comment from his campaign went unanswered. In an interview with a New York radio station last month, however, some hints emerged when he was asked about his decision to honeymoon in Cuba in 1994. Mr. de Blasio said that he doesn’t excuse the “undemocratic” regime, but he also argued that it has accomplished “some good things” like “in health care.”

Let’s pretend that’s not generations-old Castro propaganda—even though every independent report from the island describes a health-care system that has completely collapsed and cannot even provide basics like bandages and aspirin. The larger problem is that Mr. de Blasio’s remarks suggest that there is a trade-off between freedom and doctor visits. Should jailing and torturing dissidents, stealing property and terrorizing generations of Cubans be considered less horrific because they have annual physicals? Apparently.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304626104579119123262765740.html?mod=opinion_newsreel
The Path to Defeating the al-Shabaab Terrorists
The jihadists who struck my country should be fought militarily but also financially. Let’s work together.

The weekend brought encouraging news in the international fight against Islamic terrorism, news that was particularly welcome in Kenya, the country I lead. American commandos in Libya seized Abu Anas, a suspect in the 1998 bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In Somalia, U.S. Navy SEALs targeted a senior leader of al-Shabaab, the al Qaeda-affiliated group responsible for the horrific recent attack on the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi. The raid in Somalia was reportedly abandoned, to avoid harming civilians, before the al-Shabaab leader could be captured. Some al-Shabaab members were killed, but it wasn’t immediately clear whether the targeted senior leader was among the casualties.

All of us who strive to fight Islamic militancy should applaud these efforts. In particular, it is clear after the Westgate attack that the world must unite as never before in the fight against the spread of violence by al-Shabaab outside Somalia.

Before the Islamist militants’ attack in Nairobi, the Kenyan military along with our partners in an African Union force last year successfully removed al-Shabaab from Kismayo, a coastal town in Somalia, allowing the democratically elected Somali government to take control. This port was a crucial source of money for the terrorists, who extorted legitimate traders. Yet al-Shabaab was still able to strike Nairobi, the business heart of East Africa, where Africans, Americans, Europeans and Asians live side by side. Al-Shabaab appears to be shifting from a strategy of insurgency to sporadic terrorist attacks both within and beyond Somalia’s borders.

As I vowed last week in the wake of the attack, Kenyan troops will remain in Somalia to defend the government until al-Shabaab no longer poses a threat to its future and to regional security. But countries in Africa and beyond who might be targeted by al-Shabaab’s exported terrorism must consider what else should be done to combat the group. Why do young men and women join al-Shabaab and its wider networks? How can we cut off funding for this terror organization?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304906704579113830197914224.html?mod=opinion_newsreel The Supreme Court re-opens for business this week, and one of its first cases is a splendid opportunity to restore the First Amendment as a bulwark of free political speech. The result in McCutcheon v. FEC will likely hang on whether Chief Justice John Roberts has the courage of his constitutional convictions and is […]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324110404578630561814823892.html?mod=opinion_newsreel THE SUPREME COURT WILL RULE: On Oct. 16, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on a claim brought by husband and wife Brian and Kerri Kaley. The Kaleys are asking the high court to answer a serious and hotly contested question in the federal criminal justice system: Does the Constitution allow federal prosecutors […]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304171804579119671937747900.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop The tide of war against al Qaeda is expanding, as two weekend raids by U.S. commandos illustrate. The raids show the skill and reach of American special forces, but also the enduring nature of this conflict with Islamists and the need to counter its African expansion. Special forces and U.S. intelligence scored a major […]

www.verygoodnewsisrael.blogspot.com
http://blogs.jpost.com/users/just-look-us-now
ISRAEL’S MEDICAL ACHIEVEMENTS

Breakthrough in understanding leukemia. A mutated gene RUNX1 inherited from one parent is responsible for producing leukemia stem cells. Researchers at Israel’s Weizmann Institute have discovered that the healthy copy of the gene from the other parent is also required otherwise the leukemia cells die.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Controls/SendFriend.ashx?print=1&type=0&item=172304

Brain cancer breakthrough. The media is reporting the discovery by Dr Regina Golan-Gerstl, of Jerusalem’s Hadassah Medical School, of hnRNP A2/B1. The protein gene is key to the most common and aggressive adult brain cancer – glioblastoma. Great news, as reported it in my 14th Aug 2011 newsletter.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/172349#.Uk0MvVO_hOQ
http://markets.financialcontent.com/nydailynews/news/read?GUID=19085951

Laquinimod reduces brain damage in MS patients. In Phase III trials, Israel’s Teva reported that its Laquinimod oral treatment for multiple sclerosis reduced neuro-degeneration, slowing the progression of locomotor disability in multiple sclerosis patients. Laquinimod might also help treat Crohn’s disease, lupus nephritis, Huntington’s disease and Alzheimer’s.
http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000882391&fid=1725

Americans look to Israel for Parkinson’s treatment. 1.5 million Americans, including many Jews, suffer from Parkinson’s disease. The Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle highlights some of the many Israeli treatments.
http://thejewishchronicle.net/view/full_story/23697711/article-Jews-grapple-with-Parkinson-s–look-to-Israel–local-sources-for-help

DIY medical sensor. (Thanks to NoCamels.com) Israel’s Elfi Tech monitors your pulse rate, respiratory rate, blood pressure, blood flow and much more, non-invasively at any time with the help of a sensor smaller than a dime. It has just been selected as a finalist of the Nokia Sensing XChallenge.
http://nocamels.com/2013/09/do-your-own-medical-checkups-with-elfi-techs-monitoring-sensor/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUJwpMKLbhE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5em7GcJkYV8

Israel hosts international conference on proteins. 160 leading biomedical scientists from Israel, Europe and the US attended the ninth Jakub K. Parnas Conference entitled “Proteins – from Birth to Death” at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. It is co-sponsored by the Biochemical societies of Israel, Poland and the Ukraine.
http://www.as.huji.ac.il/conferences/proteins

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/360460/obamacares-unconstitutional-origins-andrew-c-mccarthy

Tax legislation has to originate in the House; the health-care law didn’t.

Of all the fraud perpetrated in the passage of Obamacare — and the fraud has been epic — the lowest is President Obama’s latest talking point that the Supreme Court has endorsed socialized medicine as constitutional. To the contrary, the justices held the “Affordable” Care Act unconstitutional as Obama presented it to the American people: namely, as a legitimate exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.

To sustain this monstrosity, Chief Justice John Roberts had to shed his robes and put on his legislator cap. He rewrote Obamacare as a tax — the thing the president most indignantly promised Americans that Obamacare was not. And it is here that our recent debate over the Constitution’s Origination Clause — the debate in which Matt Franck, Ramesh Ponnuru, Mark Steyn, and yours truly have probed the historical boundaries of the “power of the purse” reposed by the Framers in the House of Representatives — descends from the airy realm of abstraction and homes in on a concrete violation of law.

It is not just that the intensely unpopular Obamacare was unconstitutional as fraudulently portrayed by the president and congressional Democrats who strong-armed and pot-sweetened its way to passage. It is that Obamacare is unconstitutional as rewritten by Roberts. It is a violation of the Origination Clause — not only as I have expansively construed it, but even under Matt’s narrow interpretation of the Clause.

It is worth pausing here briefly to rehearse an argument often made in these pages before the Supreme Court ruling two summers ago. The justices’ resolution, whatever it was to be, would in no way be an endorsement of Obamacare; it would merely reflect the fact that our Constitution, designed for a free people, permits all manner of foolishness. “Constitutional” does not necessarily mean “good.” What Obamacare always needed was a political reversal in Congress. Thus, it was unwise for Republicans to become passive while hoping the justices would do their heavy lifting for them — both because it was unlikely that this Supreme Court would invalidate Obamacare and because a ruling upholding it would inevitably be used by the most demagogic administration in history as a judicial stamp of approval for socialized medicine.