There is a lot of talk about what is an appropriate response to Syria’s mass killing of its citizens with chemical weapons. I think the solution is quite simple. The US doesn’t want to kill innocent life so we should simply give a list of 24 locations that will be destroyed sometime in the next 7 days. We encourage the residents of Syria to evacuate those locations and an area at least 1-mile perimeter around each location and explain that some but not all of the locations will be obliterated in the next 7 days.
The new White House chief of staff can improve matters but it’s unlikely to be much of a change. And then there’s the question of how long any improvement will last. We’ve seen brief bouts of normalcy from this president before. Staff changes will only get Mr. Trump so far. The problem with his administration isn’t the administrators.
Source: Trump’s White House Mess
On Friday, October 28th, the political world of the US was shocked to read that the Director Jim Comey was investigating new emails in the Hillary Clinton investigation.
As you may remember, Director Comey ended this investigation several months ago. It is utterly amazing that he would announce a renewed interest in more emails. This could easily affect the vote for the President of the United States, and surely Director Comey understands this implication.
And therein gives us our first understanding of what is going on with the investigation. It is very doubtful that these emails have anything to do with Ms. Clinton’s yoga classes or seating arrangements at her daughter’s wedding. The emails, numbering more than 1,000, were found on a computer used by both disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) and his wife, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, according to law enforcement officials with knowledge of the inquiry who spoke to reporters on the condition of anonymity.
The most revealing words in FBI Director James Comey’s statement Tuesday explaining his decision not to recommend prosecuting Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information were these: “This is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.”
So there it is for everyone to understand: One standard exists for a Democratic candidate for President and another for the average citizen. No wonder so many voters think Washington is rigged for the powerful.
Consumer preferences, reduced technology costs and government policies that increase labor costs are driving a trend toward automation in the restaurant business. If you make something more convenient and less expensive, it tends to catch on.
As recently as the 1960s, gas-station employees would rush to fill your car’s tank, wash the windows, check the oil and put air in the tires. Telephone operators made your long-distance calls and bank tellers cashed your checks. Those jobs now are either gone or greatly diminished.
Today, we reduce jobs whenever we shop on Amazon instead of our local retail outlet, use an Uber app rather than calling a cab dispatcher, order a pizza online, use an airport kiosk to print boarding passes, or scan groceries. Each of these changes in behavior has increased convenience and reduced labor costs—and competitive businesses pass the savings to their customers.
Mrs. Clinton complained in her testimony on Capitol Hill that past Congresses had never made the overseas deaths of U.S. officials a “partisan” issue. That’s because those past deaths had never inspired an administration to concoct a wild excuse for their occurrence, in an apparent attempt to avoid blame for a terror attack in a presidential re-election year.
The early hints that this is exactly what happened after the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans cast doubt on every White House-issued “fact” about the fiasco and led to the establishment of Rep. Trey Gowdy’s select committee.
Count on the Obama administration to again resort to blaming “confusing” and “conflicting” information at the time for its two-week spin. That was Mrs. Clinton’s flimsy excuse at the hearing. But her own conversations prove she was in no doubt about what happened—while it was still happening.