RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-growing-india-is-good-for-the-us-modi-state-visit-8-percent-reform-65f1047d?mod=opinion_lead_pos6

When India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits the U.S. this week, Americans should pay careful attention to his vision for 8% growth. Both countries would benefit greatly from faster growth.

India has entered the 25-year period leading to the 100th anniversary of its independence with a growth plan. Called Amrit Kaal, which roughly translates to “Golden Era,” it is Mr. Modi’s rallying cry and blueprint for India to reach 8% growth and a much higher median income. Faster growth in India would help the U.S. by allowing new opportunities for trade and investment, less dependence on China, and better balance for the bipolar world economy.

Eight percent sounds out of reach in a world of weak growth, but India has grown by 6% or more in recent years and is building from a relatively low base ($2,200 per capita). When offered sound policies and the tolerance inherent in rules-based government, people from anywhere in the world can achieve fast compound growth rates. China’s economy grew 10% a year throughout its 1993-2012 era of currency stability, market and price liberalization, and tolerance for growing businesses.

India has shown that it can hold down external indebtedness and that the rupee can be relatively stable. It should build on that. Key reforms would shrink spending and bureaucracy and allow increased investment and jobs in medium-size companies. India’s job creation is shaped like a barbell, with startups and small businesses on one side facing daunting barriers to expansion from overgrown government, regulation and high taxes. On the other side are the government and a few big companies as massive employers. While Mr. Modi’s budget calls for more government investment, it is critical that investment shift to the private sector, particularly so small businesses can grow. Reforms offer big potential upside in three particular areas.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/propublica-misleads-its-readers-alito-gifts-disclosure-alaska-singer-23b51eda?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

Editor’s note: Justin Elliott and Josh Kaplan of ProPublica, which styles itself “an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism with moral force,” emailed Justice Alito Friday with a series of questions and asked him to respond by noon EDT Tuesday. They informed the justice that “we do serious, fair, accurate reporting in the public interest and have won six Pulitzer Prizes.” Here is Justice Alito’s response:

ProPublica has leveled two charges against me: first, that I should have recused in matters in which an entity connected with Paul Singer was a party and, second, that I was obligated to list certain items as gifts on my 2008 Financial Disclose Report. Neither charge is valid.

• Recusal. I had no obligation to recuse in any of the cases that ProPublica cites. First, even if I had been aware of Mr. Singer’s connection to the entities involved in those cases, recusal would not have been required or appropriate. ProPublica suggests that my failure to recuse in these cases created an appearance of impropriety, but that is incorrect. “There is an appearance of impropriety when an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant facts would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties” (Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices appended to letter from the Chief Justice to Senator Durbin, April 25, 2023). No such person would think that my relationship with Mr. Singer meets that standard. My recollection is that I have spoken to Mr. Singer on no more than a handful of occasions, all of which (with the exception of small talk during a fishing trip 15 years ago) consisted of brief and casual comments at events attended by large groups. On no occasion have we discussed the activities of his businesses, and we have never talked about any case or issue before the Court. On two occasions, he introduced me before I gave a speech—as have dozens of other people. And as I will discuss, he allowed me to occupy what would have otherwise been an unoccupied seat on a private flight to Alaska. It was and is my judgment that these facts would not cause a reasonable and unbiased person to doubt my ability to decide the matters in question impartially.

Second, when I reviewed the cases in question to determine whether I was required to recuse, I was not aware and had no good reason to be aware that Mr. Singer had an interest in any party. During my time on the Court, I have voted on approximately 100,000 certiorari petitions. The vast majority receive little personal attention from the justices because even a cursory examination reveals that they do not meet our requirements for review.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/06/_us_military_leaders_prioritizing_protecting_emthemselvesem_rather_than_the_nation.html

The Intercept recently revealed that high-ranking U.S. military officials have intelligence resources charged with protecting their physical well-being…and also their egos…from criticism and potential subsequent “embarrassment,” in particular due to comments posted on social media. This is not a joke. (Okay, it is in one sense, but not literally.)

Yes, according to the left-leaning online newspaper, a new U.S. military unit has apparently been tasked with monitoring social media for mean posts about current and former high-ranking officers. Presumably, stuff like this from Twitter:

This fairly reeks of dictatorships, juntas, and other authoritarian regimes.

Forget defending against China, Iran, North Korea, et. al., the Obiden administration has fundamentally transformed what was previously the world’s most powerful and capable fighting force. It has emasculated it—and tasked it with defending against nationalism, climate change, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, misgendering, “disinformation,” “domestic terrorists” (i.e. patriots and parents)…and now posts critical of military heads themselves.

Somewhere, George Washington weeps. And Patton rages.