Even Sailors Want To Get Lucky

A mini rant before the main one, I hate salacious tag lines without the pay off. If you’re going to hook me with ,”Navy Admirals charged with bribery for trading state secrets for free pussy”, I want to know exactly what they gave up, albeit missile diagnostics, carrier deployment schedules, or specific nuclear launch codes, whether Navy Secretary Ray Mabus wears boxers or briefs does not qualify.

OK, on to the topic at hand. 3 top Navy Admirals got busted for accepting bribes in the performance of their duties;

Three more Navy admirals have been reprimanded in connection with the Fat Leonard bribery scandal after they accepted expensive gifts in exchange for Navy secrets but none will face criminal charges, the Navy said.
The widening ‘Fat Leonard’ scandal has seen senior sailors implicated in a long-running bribery scheme that included rewards of prostitutes, Lady Gaga tickets and payoffs in Southeast Asia.
So far, the massive bribery scandal has cost the government $20 million and the admirals censured represent the highest-ranking officers to be punished in the case so far.

All manner of booty {snark} was used to entice, everything from kobe beef (those bastards) to Lady Gaga tickets (what, no Starland Vocal Band reunion tour tickets?).

I remember reading about this Fat Leonard dude before. After making tens of millions involving illegally obtained navy contracts and supply procurement orders, he got caught, most greedy bastards of his ilk usually do (looking at you, Sheldon Silver, you putz).

So these 3 get cashiered but do not face criminal charges, a sweet deal and they did not even have to desert to get it. But does the punishment fit the crime? The article points out that this will involve career ending reprimands, like this is somehow sufficient justice. I think an immediate dishonorable discharge, a reduction in rank, and an order for restitution to pay the fair value amount of the bribes rendered. I’m sure some Navy clerk can determine the dollar equivalent of all the happy endings that occurred with their bang bang girls.

Admittedly, one of my pet peeves is rendering swift proportional justice to those public figures that abuse powers and duties given to them by the people. Whether it be military, politicians or LE, with power given comes the responsibility and duty to wield it in the manner given and when abuses of authority are committed, to come down hard with extreme prejudice.

Too bad they don’t go after tax cheats, even those that break bread with the president, as enthusiastically.

Alex, Hide Your Cat

Fortifying the old adage that misery loves company, I am always amused at fellow progressive states trying (and many times succeeding) in out California-ing California, taking progressive-ism to a whole new level, like that could even be construed as a good thing. That wannabe state of Connecticut (sorry, but we on the west coast sport higher individual state income taxes, so you are still pikers in that comparison) isn’t satisfied with just the concept of religious freedom, no, they want to bring back the old testament as well, including animal sacrifice;

According to the NY Daily News, one of the holidays that the Waterbury school district has decided to ‘honor’ is Eid al-Adha:

The board voted to recognize Eid Al-Fitr, marking the end of the month of Ramadan, and Eid Al-Adha, an annual feast day, by giving observant students the day off to celebrate with their families. It also voted to instruct educators not to schedule any field trips, major tests or class events on the two holidays, according to the FoxCT channel.

Walid Shoebat points out that Eid al-Adha isn’t just a day of prayer and family, but it also includes the sacrificing of an animal at the end of the day:

The separation of church and state? Only when it comes to Christianity, Muslims are special, short fused, and prone to violence, hell yes we must make special accommodations for them.

Sure, the kids are thrilled, more holidays where there is no school, and the teachers are for it as well, those hard working civil servants never say no more days off.

Of course if the school district is really serious about immersing the kids in the Islamic culture and promoting tolerance for other religions, classes should be taught in the proper away to sacrifice animals, including mandatory participation. And like sex ed, no need to get the parents of dhimmies involved, the schools know what’s best for promoting harmony in a multicultural society.

It should not surprise anybody, the length and breadth at which school districts bend over backwards to accommodate the squeaky wheel, and if Muslims are known for anything it is how much they squeak in the face of any blowback to their demands.

About as often as Hal and I go round and round over budgetary issues, the Old Testament and it’s relevance towards modern day Christians, is also debated (and for the life of me I still do not get the confusion). But here is the fundamental difference, yes, in the OT days, the Jews conducted animal sacrifices, stoned adulterers, treated women like property, adopted strict guidelines in dress and food preparation, even outlawing having sex with a woman who is menstruating, but they don’t do that stuff anymore. And Christians never did because they are not bound by the “Old Covenant”. Today every other religion acts like adults, except the Muslims, no, they still get their Sharia and all the barbaric practices that go with that.

Even our goofy President loves his talking points, namely that 99 percent of all Muslims are peaceful and willing to live in a modern world, even though this flies right in the face of all the polling in those predominantly Muslim nations, the polls that identify large (not the majority, certainly, but higher than what is rational) numbers that sympathize with terrorists, want Sharia and would welcome the Caliphate, regardless of the death involved in achieving it.

I would expect this sort of nonsense in England, they gave up their national identity years ago, but here?

Too big to fail uber alles!

Why would anyone be surprised to find out that collectivists pretending to be solving a financial problem opted to implement more of the too big to fail and centrally planned solution, despite the fact we have history showing this approach will lead to trouble and failure?

A new study by Marshall Lux and Robert Greene reports that since the enactment of Dodd-Frank community banks have lost market share at twice the rate that they did prior to Dodd-Frank.

The authors note that many of the regulations implemented pursuant to Dodd-Frank are not linked to the size of the institution, thus there are economies of scale in regulatory compliance. Thus, regulatory costs tend to fall proportionally heavier on smaller banks, which, in turn, tends to promote consolidation of the industry (as I noted several years ago when I predicted that Dodd-Frank would promote industry consolidation).

The study has lots of interesting data on the industry patterns of lending by various types of banks as well, most notably that large banks tend to make fewer agricultural loans than community banks.

This result was to be expected and is only news to people that believe doing the same old dumb pseudo-marxist shit will suddenly produce a different result. If anything, history, replete with examples of how this stuff fails, stagnates, and breeds inefficiency and trouble, shows us that the statists on the left believe in an unholy alliance between state and big business. In their minds it provides them with the ability to micro manage and centrally plan. That it only serves to create a monopolistic environment where innovation and cost reduction are destroyed by ever growing protectionist regulation and that the people forced to deal with these entities lose out, seems to escape these moron’s ability to cogitate.

The demcorats created the “too big to fail” entities they then successfully managed to convince an ill informed and low information based public was Boosh’s fault. Dodd-Frank upped the ante here. Those of us that pointed that out were told that it was needed to curtail evil people in the financial industry, as if the problem wasn’t with the system, the rules, and implementation of contradictory and bad regulations that encouraged the bad behavior in the first place. People should not be surprised that what we end up with will be giant unresponsive, bloated, inefficient, and costly financial conglomerates, in bed with our own government, and a system that remains fragile and prone to costly and painful implosions.

But don’t worry. The democrats responsible for the problem in the first place will be more than happy to throw oodles of tax payer dollars, syphoned from the productive, at the problem. Then they will blame the rich, the financial sector, republicans, and anyone they can conveniently scapegoat instead of themselves and their wealth redistribution schemes and scams. They will demand the right to fix the problem they conveniently blame on others, like they did when they created Dodd-Frank. And when their regulation results in even more of the same, but just on steroids, they will rub their grubby hands together and laugh at the envy and jealousy driven idiots that will go along with them yet again.

Collectivism sucks.

Real world intrudes on stupid collectivist’s delusions

My state, “The People’s Republic of Connecticut”, overrun with moochers and other blue staters that have been living large on the work of the few productive, is in dire economic straits now that its government has done what the left always does: mismanage their tax & spend agenda. So now, with skyrocketing taxes and an orchestrated class warfare campaign backfiring on them they are worried about the super rich moving:

“There are probably a handful of people, five to seven people, who if they just picked up and went, you would see that in the revenue stream,” said Kevin Sullivan, the state’s commissioner of the Department of Revenue Services.

I hope these people move. Even if the collectivists that are running the place into the ground would then just solve the problem by jacking up taxes on the middle class, yet again. It would be worth watching their anguish. How dare people do what is in their best interest when collectivists with their own idiotic agenda want things from them? And I bet that everyone of these super rich are democrat donors and voters. Fucking idiots.

It is only a failed presidency if you don’t understand the destruction is by design

Town Hall has a post up dealing with Obama’s failed presidency. Those of us that no longer remain in the dark know better. Obama has achieved a lot of what he set out to do, as he promised he would when he made the claim he would fundamentally transform America, but the problem is with the people that think he meant to improve things. To the left and Obama the only failure on their part was to not straddle us with even more destructive marxist bullshit. More fast growing debt, millions of illegals sucking at the government’s teat, millions of people unable to find work and forced to suck at the government’s tit, millions of people that have made sucking at the government’s teat their way of life, and the middle class under assault and driven to collapse by the government tax and regulatory burden, have all been bonuses to these fucking crooks. That’s the plan they had from the start, because they think we are all too stupid and in need of micro management.

Oh yeah, the LSM must be doing battlespace preparations for the coming elections as well, considering the number of articles telling us that lying is not a bad thing. Sure this is not really about politics, but this belief that lying is a good thing is part and parcel of the left’s modus operandi. Remember Obamacare? Shit, might as well say “remember the Obama presidency?”, because it has all been lies and criminal acts.

They’re Coming for Your Bits

For the past few years, a debate has been raging over net neutrality. While, in principle, I’m sympathetic to the idea of a neutral net, I’ve always suspected there was a secondary agenda, that “net neutrality” was a backdoor for something more sinister. It is well known the power that be hate the open internet, hate anonymous commenting and posting, despise free speech and would love to have officially approved channels of information.

Well, the mask is torn, at least a little bit:

Proponents of network neutrality regulation are cheering the announcement this week that the Federal Communications Commission will seek to reclassify Internet Service Providers as “common carriers” under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. The move would trigger broad regulatory powers over Internet providers—some of which, such as authority to impose price controls, the FCC has said it will “forbear” from asserting—in the name of “preserving the open internet.”

Sanchez goes on to point out the FCC is contemplating a broad action in response to … a very nebulous situation. It’s not clear exactly what menace is so dire they need to respond to it immediately. It is clear, however, that moving toward a regulatory model will give them unprecedented power, as warned by … um … one of the FCC commissioners:

First, President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. It’s an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American people, decide the future of the online world. It’s no wonder that net neutrality proponents are already bragging that it will turn the FCC into the “Department of the Internet.” For that reason, if you like dealing with the IRS, you are going to love the President’s plan.

Second, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will increase consumers’ monthly broadband bills. The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband. Indeed, states have already begun discussions on how they will spend the extra money. These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.

Third, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will mean slower broadband for American consumers. The plan contains a host of new regulations that will reduce investment in broadband networks. That means slower Internet speeds. It also means that many rural Americans will have to wait longer for access to quality broadband.

Fourth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will hurt competition and innovation and move us toward a broadband monopoly. The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market. As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated
monopoly is what we’ll get. We shouldn’t bring Ma Bell back to life in this dynamic, digital age.

Tom Wheeler, Chairman of the FCC, is promising us that they won’t apply outmoded regulatory models to the internet. But one thing a decade of blogging has taught me: never take that sort of thing on trust. If the FCC has the power to do anything — control prices, restrict technology, regulate providers — they will use it. And a good reason to be suspicious is that they’re trying to keep their plans a secret:

But perhaps the most extraordinary thing about the proposal, which is 332 pages long, is that it is being kept secret from the public—and it will remain secret until after a vote later this month in which it is likely to pass on a 3-2 basis, with Wheeler and the FCC’s two Democratically appointed commissioners outvoting the two Republican-appointed commissioners.

The commissioners can see the plan before they cast their votes. But the rest of us can’t. Lobbyists will likely be able to discover key details affecting their clients, and some details will leak out in the press. But the full text of the plan won’t be made public at all before the vote.

Wheeler previously opposed such a move and it’s generally felt that he came under immense pressure from the White House to do this. That is, our “most transparent administration in history” is pressuring the FCC to engage in massive regulatory expansion completely in secret that could give them a stunning amount of power over one of the most important communication networks in history.

Congress needs to act immediately. The President is usurping their power to decide net neutrality regulations. They need to kill this power grab before it’s enacted. This isn’t a partisan issue. If the government gets this kind of regulatory hold of the internet, we are all screwed — liberal, conservative, libertarian, monarchist or upside-down pineapple cakeist.

The Minimum Wage Kills Jobs, Part 5529

Of all the sounded-clever-but-was-actually-idiotic things Obama said in the State of the Union address, this was the most cleverly-sounding-but-really-stupid:

And to everyone in this Congress who still refuses to raise the minimum wage, I say this: If you truly believe you could work full-time and support a family on less than $15,000 a year, go try it. If not, vote to give millions of the hardest-working people in America a raise.

As I said, sounds clever. A bunch of liberals in my Twitter feed said the equivalent of, “Oh, snap!” But the reality is that you’re not supposed to be raising a family on minimum wage. Minimum wage is an entry level wage, a wage to get your foot in the door for future better-paying jobs. I made minimum wage once. Actually, I made less than minimum wage because I was paid in cash under the table. But I was a teenager, so it was fine.

The biggest reason to oppose the minimum wage, of course, is the Law of Supply and Demand. If you artificially set the price of something high (low-skill labor), you will find that people learn to live without it (i.e., they stop hiring people). We’ve been told this is a myth, despite clear evidence that it’s not. Well, here’s another example of this thing that supposedly never happens:

In November, San Francisco voters overwhelmingly passed a measure that will increase the minimum wage within the city to $15 per hour by 2018. Although all of us at Borderlands support the concept of a living wage in principal and we believe that it’s possible that the new law will be good for San Francisco — Borderlands Books as it exists is not a financially viable business if subject to that minimum wage. Consequently we will be closing our doors no later than March 31st. The cafe will continue to operate until at least the end of this year.

Many businesses can make adjustments to allow for increased wages. The cafe side of Borderlands, for example, should have no difficulty at all. Viability is simply a matter of increasing prices. And, since all the other cafes in the city will be under the same pressure, all the prices will float upwards. But books are a special case because the price is set by the publisher and printed on the book. Furthermore, for years part of the challenge for brick-and-mortar bookstores is that companies like Amazon.com have made it difficult to get people to pay retail prices. So it is inconceivable to adjust our prices upwards to cover increased wages.

The change in minimum wage will mean our payroll will increase roughly 39%. That increase will in turn bring up our total operating expenses by 18%. To make up for that expense, we would need to increase our sales by a minimum of 20%. We do not believe that is a realistic possibility for a bookstore in San Francisco at this time.

I will point out something else that they gloss over. It’s true that businesses like the cafe side of Borderlands can cover the minimum wage hike by increasing prices. But you know who pays those increasing prices? Primarily poor and middle class people who go to the kind of places — fast food restaurants, cheap bookstores, etc. — that pay their employees minimum wage. So you’re giving them money with one hand while taking it with the other.

This is a liberal bookstore ownership. That’s clear from the way they talk about this. But they point out that the minimum wage hike will increase their operating costs by 18%. Other business will see similar hikes. Do you know how many business are operating at an 18% profit margin? Very very few. And certainly none that are patronized by the poor and middle class.

Minimum wage hikes sound good and make liberals feel good. But they are a nightmare for the job market. If you don’t believe me, believe the guys at Borderlands. They have no reason to spew “right wing propaganda”.

Keeping Their Feet To The Fire

One of the main reasons I was glad that the GOP took both house of Congress in the last election is that now Republicans will chair the various sub committees. A residual benefit is that congress critters (Harry Reid) will not be able to derail the process, run interference for the president, or sit on legislation that deserves at the very least a passing purview. But back to the sub committees, congress will now be allowed to remove itself from the personal bidding of the president and actually do it’s job, separately as was intended. With the GOP at the helm, the administration will not be allowed to sweep things under the carpet or hinder any attempt at fact finding. Although the president and his supplicants have turned manipulation and subterfuge into an art form, it is encouraging to know that folks like Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, and Lois Lerner should not get too comfy or complacent, retribution (hopefully) is inching toward fruition.

A GOP packed Senate Armed Services committee will make it even harder for Obama to fulfill a 2009 promise that still gnaws at him, closing Gitmo. Even McCain has seen the light;

Just last month, Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) promised to help Obama close the detention center where terrorism suspects have been held for years without being charged. But on Tuesday, McCain and three other Republican colleagues introduced plans to sharply restrict the removal or transfer of detainees from the facility, which has served as a long-standing target of worldwide criticism.

Although it has not been for lack of trying. And no, we will not forget about the 5 high level AQ terrorists traded for the cowardly deserter, or allow them to delay the out come indefinitely. The final report is finished and from what I have read, desertion charges will be filed. Although I don’t expect Bergdahl to serve a single day behind bars, a conclusion to this whole sordid affair is owed, both to his fellow soldiers and the rest of the nation. And a further delay, orchestrated by WH pressure on the pentagon, should not be allowed to stand.

And speaking of Gitmo;

Tom Cotton just achieved Trey Gowdy status.

My opinion of Gitmo has evolved a bit over the years, not because of it’s need or relevancy in caging terrorists, but as with pretty much everything with Obama, we spend way too much money keeping these vermin housed. We all heard about the multi million dollar soccer field, the lavish buffets offered at every meal, and the palatial digs they use for their worship services. Whatever happened to prisoners making little rocks out of big ones, and eating only when they work? This Mottle Coddling of killers is infuriating.

I am starting to doubt the efficacy of keeping any bases open in Cuba and if a better (cheaper) solution can be found for housing captured terrorists, I am willing to listen. But for now Gitmo stays open for business, and bring on a top to bottom analysis of the costs. Prison should be a hardship, this should not be Clubmed.

The collectivists will NEVER let that happen

And by “That”, I mean anything that undermines their centrally planned, leviathan owned, healthcare system destroying, economy crushing Obamacare scheme. The agenda is after all to destroy the healthcare system as we know it in the US so they can then peddle the single payer system they want. So the new republican proposal that actually would make changes to that wouldn’t destroy the healthcare system and the country economically will both be demonized and undermined to make sure it won’t interfere.

Thursday, we are unveiling our vision of policies that would strengthen our health care system while reducing federal spending and taxes. The Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility and Empowerment (CARE) Act outlines specific ideas that could replace Obamacare with more choices and higher quality, while protecting those with pre-existing conditions.

And that is why democrats want it to be DOA and will do everything to derail it. Not a fucking chance in the world that they would want something that actually fixes any of the problems they have managed to exacerbate with Obamacare. It undermines their powergrab and would make it obvious that’s what Obamacare was all about once it is implemented and works.

First, our plan would lower health care costs by empowering millions of lower and middle-income families with a refundable tax credit to purchase private health care coverage of their choice. They would no longer be subject to an individual mandate and limited to Washington-approved plans. Workers for small businesses would be eligible, too.

WTF? No central planning? No government meddling and use of force to comply? More importantly, you remove the politician’s ability to get their hands on money they let people borrow and deny them the ability to play with those people’s lives if they refuse to comply? Who is going to make sure insurance companies only make the profits that their masters in government fell are OK, huh? That’s insane!

By scrapping dozens of mandates, we estimate premiums would drop, on average, by double digits. We’d also reverse harmful changes that limited consumers’ ability to save and manage spending through health savings accounts and flexible spending accounts, and we’d encourage small-business insurance plans to give smaller employers better and more affordable options.

Are you fucking insane? Low premiums only help people, not the power hungry nanny state politicians! And why would you ever want to trust people to manage their money? Without the threat of force from government they will make the wrong choices, don’t you know? Affordability is something, according to Gruber in his rare moments of telling the truth, that you pretend you are giving people, but it is of no concern. Did the CBO even score this bad plan? What was the fixed/rigged system you gave them to make it look palatable, huh? We had a doozy when we got them to score Obamacare and make it look good. WTF do you have?

This sort of nonsense is what I expect to hear from them and their lackeys in the LSM. They will then follow it with the “But what about the poor people denied because of preexisting conditions that used to not be covered?”. Well:

What our plan would not allow is a return to the days before Obamacare when insurance companies turned away patients simply because they were sick.

Under our proposal, no patient could be denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition. We create a new “continuous coverage protection,” and if you change your job and buy a plan on your own, we would provide protections so you could not be denied coverage or be forced to pay a higher premium because of a pre-existing condition.

We would also ban insurance companies from imposing lifetime limits on a consumer, and we’d adopt age-rating changes, which lower costs for younger Americans. Individuals could stay on their parents’ health plan up to age 26, unless a state chose otherwise.

Oh snap! You have to wonder – no you don’t: I am being facetious – why the democrats didn’t do that and only that if they really cared about these people. People who because of the way Obamacare is set up can’t be denied but now can’t afford the care because of cost. Again: Obamacare was never about making healthcare affordable or available. It was about letting government get its hands on the money and decision making process, with the end game of crashing the existing system and then coming to the rescue with a single payer system they would otherwise never be able to sell anyone. It was just another giant wealth transfer scheme pretending to be something else.

Not only would our policies lower costs for patients, they would be good medicine for taxpayers. By scrapping Obamacare’s Washington-centered approach, we estimate our proposal would cut more than $1 trillion in taxes and reduce federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. All of Obamacare’s taxes would be scrapped, including the medical device tax, health insurance tax, pharmaceutical tax and other taxes masked as mandate fees.

In the coming months, the Supreme Court will hear and decide an important case regarding the president’s health care law, King v. Burwell. The justices should uphold the rule of law by overturning the administration’s unlawful decision to tax and spend through the federal exchanges. If they do so, we believe modifying and adopting some of the ideas outlined in our proposal could provide a path toward minimizing the disruption experienced by consumers.

Faster please. Kill this idiotic shit before it destroys the healthcare system and plunges the economy into an even more depressed state. Of course, getting this passed will be a monumental task, because the left will never admit that Obamacare is bad policy and that they had an agenda that wouldn’t be possible if it goes away.