Greetings.

On the International-Front, no one has provided negative-critique of the essay advocating recognition of Syrian Kurdistan as an independent state; meanwhile, Maher Echoed Hillary On Benghazi: 'What Possibly Is The Difference?', Two Kinds of Libertarianism have been defined [Calhounian and Heinleinian] and BB will lobby world powers against Iran nuclear deal [he launched an intensive campaign on Sunday to convince world powers to toughen terms of a proposed nuclear deal with Iran ahead of negotiations reconvening this week in Geneva; after meeting Francois Hollande on Sunday as part of a three-day state visit by the French president, Netanyahu was scheduled to travel to Moscow to see Russian President Vladimir Putin and return to Israel to meet U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday.]. Is this [hands-free] human-hemisection video an optical illusion? On the National-Front, The modest three-year recovery did little to change the widening income gap in America, a phenomenon manifest as ObamaCare problems grow [ObamaCare Trashes Married Couples] and Dems scramble [Failed Left-Wing Policies Sinking Obama's Presidency, Plouffe: Running Against ObamaCare an 'Impossibility', D.C.-Official who questioned Obama's health-care change was fired, Chuck Todd: White House Knows Obama Doesn't Have Power for ObamaCare 'Fix', NBC: Democrats Suffer 'Biggest Defection Of The Year' Over ObamaCare Fix, Steny Hoyer: It Was Accurate When We Said You Could Keep the Insurance You Like, Dem Senator Gillibrand: 'We All Knew' Obama Was Lying, Obama's Priority: Save Democrats, Not the Sick, Obama Health Care Woes Become Credibility Fight, CBS's Major Garrett Takes On Obama, and Why the Failure of ObamaCare is Troubling], as fictitiousObamaCare-fixes are revealed, Cruz Called-Out Obama at Federalist Society Convention; softening tone, Scarborough [on Fox] said 'Moderate Republicans Don't Win Elections'. What We Learned about ObamaCare has been satirized. On the Statewide-Front, the power-point presentation used last week during a TEA Party Patriots event by Ms. Jamie Cox has been posted [PA-Taxpayers Subsidize Union Politics]; sadly, the title says it all. Meanwhile, c/o Joanne Yurchak [h/t Guzzardi], the status of PA-Education has been updated, to wit: With regard to the Common Core (Common Core State Standards," PA Core Standards," whatever...) it is my understanding that a fiscal analysis is required for regulations to be passed. However, the PA Dept. of Education (PA DOE) did not do a fiscal analysis when the initial standards and regulations applying to these standards were adopted. From what Peg Luksik (a Pennsylvanian who understands this initiative as no other person does) said that it is legal for them to forego providing a fiscal analysis if they claim that significant federal funds are at risk if they don't adopt it. That's evidently what happened in 2010 when the PA State Board of Education (an unelected committee) adopted federally-controlled CCS in math and English (ELA) on 7/1/2010 with an effective date of putting them into place of 7/1/2013. Standards for other subjects (science, history, etc.) were to be added later. Joan Benso, a CC supporter, and head of PA Partnerships for children, included a table of what will happen if the IRRC approves of the Chapter 4 final form regulations and what will happen if they do NOT approve it. From what I have been told, this chart is correct; if they reject the regulations, they revert to the current regulations which were adopted by the PA DOE in 2010 without performing a fiscal analysis and without going before the

legislature. BOTH situations are bad. Many of you know that the IRRC will be voting on these regulations on Thursday, November 21.

Finally, an overnight e-mail exchange [e-mail received @ 12:45 AM and reply sent @ 1:08 AM] is copied
for the reading-pleasure of those who would question the motives/execution of this physician, herein; seemingly, the self-described Independent has been inculcated by the entire meme of the Lefties [and telling, unfortunately, was the writers inabilityto dateto defend an emotional reaction to a database]:
Dr Sclaroff, I have diligently read your missives, often more than once a day, and, though there is clarity on some points, you do not seem to grasp the need for people who walk into ERs be insured to allow our hospitals to keep a firm footing. As a fellow health care professional, I have seen the deleterious effects of one insured person having to pay for four or five others. An ostrich, though his head is buried, still knows of the dangers which surround him, but hopes that things will be better when he extracts his head. The costs go through the roof. It would be nice if the GOP had a plan to replace the ACA, but, they do not. Such nihilism does not ever blossom in fecundity. The original tea party was a bunch of white guys destroying private property, and dressing like a weaker ethnic group who would be easy to blame. The grass-roots fervor of your tea party associates has been by corporate underwriting so deeply, that it is hard for an independent like myself to give them any credence, and their anti-BHO bias seems more related to racism and fear, than logic. Please remove me from the daily rant mailing list, and I will settle for the facts gleaned from more heterogeneous sources. Thank you. *

The gop has a plan [interstate competition, equal tax-deductibility, etc.] and ER visits are covered both under Hill-Burton and EMTALA; these rants are well-documented and CRY for attempts @ rebuttalwhich you have failed to provide. [with hyperlinks] Also, the costs have all ready gone through the roof, and the rest of your ad-hominem is disconnected to current reality, even if the Koch Brothers initially funded one segment of the TEA Party Movement; as opposed to the libs, we do not behave as ostriches particularly with regard to the skyrocketing debt. And the only racism that exists is that which is projected by faux-independents such as yourself; the one truism in your reaction is the existence of FEAR that America is being destroyed. Do you support BHOs capitulation to Tehran? [BTW, I draw from myriad sources, includingin particularMSNBCso your comprehension skills are wanting.] If you cant refute my data with data, then you perhaps are rejecting the conclusions drawn therefrom a bit prematurely, eh? Your reaction [and my response] will assuredly appear [without your name] in the next Blast [which Ill spare you, if I can find your e-mail address among the nonalphabetized aggregates]. [You must REALLY be frustrated by the POTUS-meltdown, if you felt so provoked.]

Two more: "I've got Israel's back" and

"I will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons." [h/t Steve Feldman via Bernadette Bachich Repisky]