And in my hubris, I’m going to write about it. In an article about ISIS likely having captured a supply of Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, Fox News commits the crime. Unfortunately, Fox News is just one of far too many news organizations that do this.
fallen into the hands of Sunni insurgents.
And
fall into the hands of the radical group.
No. These are not “insurgents,” nor are they a “radical group.” ISIS is a terrorist organization. Full stop.
Now the Obama administration is “weighing” sending 100 (count ’em) Special Forces soldiers to…some place…in Iraq. With their hands tied behind their backs.
The troops would fall under the authority of the US ambassador in Baghdad and would not be authorized to engage in combat, another US official said. Their mission would be “non-operational training” of both regular and counterterrorism units, which the military has in the past interpreted to mean training on military bases[.]
So, no support, no qualified leadership at the top, and they’ll likely be on bases that the Iraqi “army” abandons at the first sniff of gun smoke.
This is not an optimal use of our SF.
Hillary Clinton, according to The Daily Caller, worries. The woman who just lately sat in the Secretary of State’s chair said this in response to a question about who, after herself, was the most viable woman presidential candidate of either party:
Whoever runs has to recognize that the American political system is probably the most difficult, even brutal, in the world.
The Washington Post‘s congressional reporter Ed O’Keefe had this thought about Clinton’s thought:
Would Indira Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto agree?
And that’s just a couple of women. Does anyone thing Golda Meir had an easy time of it? Margaret Thatcher?
How about the male side of political systems: Leon Trotsky, perhaps, or Joseph Stalin after him? Or Lin Biao? Maybe Pol Pot’s nameless competitors? Is northern Korea’s political system a stroll in the park? Was eastern Germany’s? And so on.
This delicacy is resident in the woman who would sit in the President’s chair.
Hmm….
[T]he [IMF] said there is significant slack in the [US] economy and authorities must do more to stimulate growth in the near term. At the same time, Washington must cut spending and raise revenue in the long term to avoid public debt overwhelming the country’s finances.
The best option is for the government to boost spending, notably on infrastructure, the IMF said.
This is a clear misunderstanding of the role of government in a free nation’s free market economy—by folks who should know better. Hence the need to reduce support: these folks are merely squandering what they have.
No, Washington must not “do more to stimulate growth” in the private sector, other than by reducing its enormous boot print and getting out of the way of our economy.
No, Washington must not “raise revenue in the long term” except by getting out of the way of our economy and letting its growth and increased and increasing health generate more revenues for government through increased and increasing economic activity. Here, I’m eliding the premise that Washington actually needs revenue increases.
No, Washington does not need to “boost spending.” As the IMF pretended to notice just above, Washington must cut spending. In fact, Washington must cut spending to below actual revenues and quit crowding out the private sector and private enterprise.
Full stop.
Like a lot folks, I’m skeptical about the…accuracy…of the IRS’ lately claim that they can’t find Lois Lerner’s emails from before 2011.
My skepticism flows from a number of sources:
Note to those of you who believe the IRS’ claim: perhaps I can interest you in some beachfront property north of Santa Fe.