yeoman_first_classbr_11_ounce_mug_2
How to Destroy the US Navy
Reading Time: 2 minutes

You don’t need bombs and torpedos to destroy the Navy. Political correctness and terrible senior management are the Navy’s greatest threats. And today the Navy dropped a bomb on itself, with the help of Barack Obama.

Obama’s Secretary of the Navy eliminated the 241-year-old Navy enlisted rating system. Because Obama felt the ratings were too politically incorrect? They weren’t gender neutral. Via

No more Yeoman, Corpsman, or even Fire Control Technician. No more Torpedoman or Machinist’s Mate. No more Boatswain.

Now, a sailor is just “petty officer.”

What’s the big deal, you say?

It’s a big deal. I spoke to a Navy sailor about the dictate. “The biggest problem is many sailors feel like they have lost their identities and had absolutely no say in the matter,” he told me.

The sailor countered my assertion that this is about political correctness. This source says the move was to fill undesirable jobs, known as billets. (Warning: salty sailor talk): “Even the females are pissed. It has nothing to do with gender neutrality it’s about the Navy trying to fill unwanted billets. No one wants to be a Shit Shoveler on the USS Never Home so now the Navy expects everyone to be a Shit Shoveler.”

Here’s what that means.

Say a submarine tender has an open billet for a junior Boatswain’s Mate. That job entails  a lot of hard, back-breaking work like chipping paint, rigging lines. There’s little chance of promotion. And submarine tenders, while vital and dangerous, are not the sexiest ships in the Navy. Few people ask for orders to the deck division of a tender.

The Navy doesn’t assign Yeoman or a Torpedoman to a tender’s deck div. But if everybody’s just a petty officer, anybody can get those orders. Petty officer is the great equalizer.

By eliminating ratings, the Navy can eliminate a headache for its leadership while making sailors lives miserable. Management guru Peter Drucker said all problems are management problems. In this case, the Navy’s senior management solved a problem for themselves by dumping it on the enlisted community. It’s bad management 101.

Whether driven by political correctness or lousy management, the Navy’s decision will lead to future retention and quality-of-recruit problems. Quality enlisted people will likely flee in droves. That means less desirable recruits will move in, reducing readiness and increasing accidents. But the managers can go home at 3:30.

This is how you destroy the United States Navy.

And this opens up a great opportunity for Donald Trump. “Seriously, most people here I talk to don’t support Trump or Hilary, but if Trump could come out on this issue and call it bullshit like it truly is, he would gain a whole lot of support

“Seriously, most people here I talk to don’t support Trump or Hilary, but if Trump could come out on this issue and call it bullshit like it truly is, he would gain a whole lot of support.”

Read More
How to Destroy Radical Islam Without Firing a Shot
Reading Time: 1 minutes

You probably know that I admire Scott Adams quite a bit. He’s brilliantly predicted everything Trump has done. And he’s not finished dazzling us with his prediction skills.

Yesterday he made a prediction of how we’ll kill ISIS. It isn’t pretty. He’s not advocating what will happen. He’s just telling us what will happen.

I’m going to offer an alternative end to ISIS. It’s one I’ve advocated for attacking radical Islam since 2001. And it’s far less brutal. It’s perfect for a Master Persuader President like Trump.

Try to remember the feelings in the fall of 2001.  It’s easy. The month after 9/11 was a time of high anxiety. Amid the angst, my ex-wife asked me what I would do about radical Islam.

My answer: undermine their youth.

I went into a little detail.

I said, “corrupt their youth. Replace their religion with sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll. Destroy the dignity and authority of parents, especially fathers. Give them distractions–cell phones, computers loaded with video games. And wait 10 years.”

Today, I’d substitute smart phones for computers. (The iPhone was still six years away then.)

She responded later, saying, “but that’s what you’ve always said was ruing this country.”

“Exactly,” I said.

I like my plan better than Scott’s. Not only does mine avoid the problems of a messy genocide (followed by a lot of finger-pointing), my plan opens up new markets for American goods and services. All those Carrier air conditioners that Trump will keep coming out of Indiana need to go somewhere. What’s a better market for AC units than a desert?

If George Bush had implemented in my plan in 2001, the terror threat would be over and GDP growth would be 5 percent.

Read More
pablo-1
Shameless James Comey Is a Liar and Darrell Issa Is a Hero
Reading Time: 3 minutes

No honest company would hire FBI Director James Comey. He might be loyal, but he’ll commit crimes of loyalty.

Comey would have fit right in at Enron. Or in Ceauşescu’s Romania.

Today we learned that Comey flat out lied about Cheryl Mills’s immunity agreement. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) exposed Comey’s lies just minutes after Comey lied to Congress under oath about the extent of immunity granted to Mills, who was both a State Department employee and one of Hillary’s huge stable of personal attorneys. (Comey previously lied to the Senate, but our lazy Republican Senators never bothered to read the immunity deals.)

I happened to be in my car when Fox News cut in to carry the dramatic exchange. I couldn’t wait to get home and write this.

Issa violated rules to reveals details of Mills’s immunity deal–details that Comey previously denied under oath. Issa broke the rules because Comey relied on those rules to cover his own lies. Comey had no idea Issa would have none of Comey’s repeated perjuries.

Here’s the dramatic exchange, straight out of an Otto Preminger movie:

Face it: James Comey is a liar and crook. Fifty years ago, he’d be headed to prison for a decade. His own children would scorn and disown him.

Over the top?

After Comey lied to Rep. Issa in the clip above, Issa received even more information about the immunity deal from the Department of Justice. It turns out, Mills received immunity from every possible crime related to the case. Via Dan Abrams’s Law Newz blog, Issa returned to the hearing and laid Comey’s crimes bare:

Congressman Issa then took the microphone and explained that Mills “negotiated a very, very good deal….”  He further explained, “She did not just receive immunity related to the production of the drive, the computer and [its] contents, but, in fact, received immunity under 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) and (f), 18 U.S.C. § 1924 and … 18 U.S.C. § 2071.”

18 U.S.C. § 793(e) covers the illegal retention and transmission of materials “relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.”

18 U.S.C. § 793(f), of course, is the now infamous gross negligence statute that the Department of Justice considers to be unconstitutional, according to Director Comey.

18 U.S.C. § 1924 is the misdemeanor statute involving the unauthorized removal and retention of classified material.

Finally, 18 U.S.C. § 2071 covers the concealment, removal or mutilation of certain government documents.

Congressman Issa said he wanted to pay particular attention to the immunity under § 2071 because of evidence uncovered in recent weeks.  Specifically, Issa referred to Reddit posts that Director Comey acknowledged at the hearing on Tuesday were by written Paul Combetta.  The now deleted posts said a client asked to have the email address belonging to someone who was “VERY VIP” stripped from a batch of archived emails.  Director Comey also acknowledged that Combetta likely received the directions to strip the email address from Cheryl Mills.

In short, Comey has testifed under oath that Mills’s immunity was limited to information discovered on her MacBook. In fact, Mills cannot be prosecuted for any crime related to the case, including:

  • Illegally holding and transmitting classified materials
  • Gross negligence
  • Illegally removing and storing classified material

In other words, Mills cannot be prosecuted for the crimes she most certainly committed. And James Comey is covering that crook. Which makes Comey a crook, too.

Let’s hope President Trump’s DOJ rescinds Mills’s immunity and tries Mills, Comey, Clinton, and those smirking Bleach Bit ass hats who deleted documents under subpoena. They’re all crooks and liar like Hillary Rotten Clinton.

By the way, when someone who’s granted immunity lies to investigators, the government rescinds the immunity. Immunity is always predicated on telling the truth. It’s why they give immunity in the first place: to get the truth.

Well, we know beyond a reasonable doubt that Cheryl Mills lied to the FBI investigators after signing her immunity deal. She lied about numerous things to protect Crooked Hillary. But the government has refused to rescind her crooked immunity deal because the entire US government is criminal enterprise.

I have no respect for the FBI anymore. None. As far as I’m concerned, they’re all crooks. Every last agent and filing clerk.

It’ll take 10 years to straighten out that crooked operation. And that’s if Trump gets started on January 20. If Hillary wins, the FBI will never be more than the US version of the Soviet committee for state security.  

Read More
dsc9675
Trump Bunted a Hanging Slider He Could Have Walloped
Reading Time: 1 minutes

Donald Trump missed numerous opportunities to use humor to destroy Hillary Clinton Monday night.

The clearest example was on Lester Holt’s question on cyber security. Hillary went first and gave a long, robotic answer, hitting all the buzzwords her handlers made her memorize.

Trump countered with a similar answer. But Trump could have crippled Hillary with a single line:

If you’re worried about cyber security, don’t elect a woman who runs an email server out of her basement.

That’s the clearest example of a hanging slider that Trump bunted. He could have crushed it.

I don’t think the debate will change the polls much at all. I do think Trump laid up. But why?

One possibility: suspense.

The candidates have two debates left. Trump understands television. Did Trump lay up in debate one to crush it in a later debate?

It’s possible.

Everyone remembers 2012. Romney ran circles around Obama in round one, only to collapse in round two. Round three became meaningless.

Reagan fell eight points after his first debate with Mondale in 1984. After round two, Reagan went on to win 49 states.

Trump might realize that it’s impossible to knock out an opponent when two more rounds are guaranteed. Why not fight to a draw in round one to set up round two?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying Trump lost round one. I’m saying he could have creamed her, and he didn’t. He didn’t swing away on the hanging sliders. And he seemed supremely pleased with his performance.

It’s clear that Trump did exactly that he set out to do.

The second debate just became fascinating. And it’s in St. Louis.

Read More
Spontaneous #DebateNight Reaction
Reading Time: 1 minutes

Liveblogging the biggest debate in history.

Before that, you should read my proposed closing remarks for Donald Trump. Someone told me on twitter that there will be no closing remarks. So maybe Mr. Trump will use my prompts for his opening statement.

To make this more fun, you can grade my prediction accuracy at the end of the post.

Read More
trump-hat
Trump’s Closing Statement Tonight
Reading Time: 2 minutes

If he asked me, here’s how I’d end the debate of the century.

First, I’d close off any open loops that arose during the debate. Then:

American children under 10 have never known a year with three-percent GDP growth. Americans under 40 have no memory real wages going up. And American people of every age, from infant to elderly, never knew a time of greater threat from foreign terrorist attack.

While my opponent’s wealth skyrocketed from zero to hundreds of millions of dollars by pedling influence, largely to foreign governments and mega banks, the lives of ordinary Americans declined by almost every measure. You might remember that her husband once talked about the people who “work hard and play by the rules.” Well, those rules changed, and no one told you. Those rules changed to give unfair advantage to their well-connect cronies who hover over Washington like buzzards, waiting for one of your tax dollars to drop.

I am running for President to give voice to you, the builders, the makers, and the silent American people. I am running for President because, in my lifetime, I have seen the greatest nation in history, the greatest hope for democracy and peace, pushed to the brink of collapse. I am running for President to restore the rules we all agreed to, the rules that have been covered over and pushed aside.

This push came from people I know–cynical people I know all too well. It would be fair to say I am not without some hand in this coarsening of America. Maybe that’s why I am working so hard now to fix the problem that I began to recognize long ago.

I told Oprah Winfrey in 1988 that I would only run for President if things got so bad. So bad. At the time, I never believed that would happen. But you know now that things are so bad.

While my opponent denies your pain, I want to heal it. While my opponent denies her hand in aggrivating your pain, I can see it. And so can you. While my opponent attacks my character and yours, I stand with YOU.

In the remaining days of this election, I hope, in a moment of reflection, you will ask yourself one simple question: if America remains on its current path, what kind of country will our children inherit? Will our children inherit a Pottersville of greed, lust, violence, corruption, and decay? Or will we restore the shining city on  a hill that Ronald Reagan spoke of?

I sincerely offer my remaining years on earth to restore that shining city on a hill, and I humbly ask for your vote on November eighth.

Thank you, and God bless you.

 

BONUS: Rate My Prediction

 

Powered byTypeform
Read More
roy-blunt
If you want Mike Lee on the Supreme Court, you have to vote for Roy Blunt
Reading Time: 2 minutes

I’ll make this short. I have been highly critical of Senator Roy Blunt for a long time. You can search my blog and find many things that bother me about the Blunts, but that’s not what this is about.

This post is about whether the US Constitution survives.

This post is about whether that government of the people, by the people, and for the people will perish from the earth.

This post is about saving the damn country, and I won’t let my positions stand before that overriding great interest.

The Supreme Court and Survival of the Constitution

Antonin Scalia is dead. At best, the Supreme Court is split 4-4. The person who replaces Scalia will tip the balance one way or the other.

If the balance tips toward the left, our future will become very dim. A 5-4 leftist majority will literally rule the Constitution out of existence. That court would find new “rights” that enslave people. (The right to healthcare means people can be impressed into service as a doctor or nurse. A right to education means people can be forced against their will to teach.)

That leftist majority would discover amazing new limits on freedom of speech and assembly. It will find tight restrictions on Christianity and Judaism.

That leftist majority would find a new meaning for the 2nd Amendment. This new meaning will give governments the power to enter your home and seize your weapons. Because that’s the power government wants.

Justice Mike Lee

Like Ted Cruz, I want to see Senator Mike Lee in that seat. Mike Lee or someone like him. Yesterday, Trump added Senator Lee to his proposed list of Supreme Court nominees, as reported by Breitbart:

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), who currently serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee and clerked for Justice Samuel Alito, is one of the newly added names.

In May, Trump released a list of possible justices he would use to fill the current vacancy due to Justice Scalia’s death in February.

The initial list was described by Breitbart News legal editor Ken Klukowski as a “conservative goldmine.”

Later that day, Senator Ted Cruz endorsed Donald Trump. In his endorsement, Cruz cited Mike Lee’s possible SCOTUS appointment as a key reason for supporting Trump:

For some time, I have been seeking greater specificity on this issue, and today the Trump campaign provided that, releasing a very strong list of potential Supreme Court nominees — including Sen. Mike Lee, who would make an extraordinary justice — and making an explicit commitment to nominate only from that list. This commitment matters, and it provides a serious reason for voters to choose to support Trump.

Two things must happen for Justice Lee to become a reality:

  1. Trump must win.
  2. Republicans must retain the Senate.

I Endorse Roy Blunt

So I am voting for Senator Blunt, and I pray you do, too. I’m voting for Blunt for the same reasons Ted Cruz is voting for Donald Trump. If Trump wins, he can’t do any good, including choosing a Supreme Court nominee, without a strong Senate majority. If Trump doesn’t win, we’ll need the strongest possible Republican Senate. Either way, it has to be Blunt.

I am not going to argue with anyone about Blunt’s strengths and weaknesses. Blunt’s Heritage Action score might dip into the 50s, but his opponent’s score would never rise above zero.  I’m looking at the lay of the land and, as General Patton, adapting principles to circumstances.

Read More
self-immolation-protests-tibet
#NeverTrump Self Immolation Over Trusty Ted Cruz
Reading Time: 3 minutes

This is for the people, like me, who realized sometime between June 2015 and June 2016 that Donald Trump is at least better than Hillary and possibly a transformational character who can reverse America’s descent into chaos.

“A leader is a man who can adapt principles to circumstances.”
– General George Patton Jr

You might think this post is an attempt to reach #NeverTrumpers and bring them on board the Trump Train. I wouldn’t do that. Those #NeverTrump people are emotionally unreachable. They have barricaded themselves inside a perfect world that never existed. I published Turning On Trump as a last lifeline to the NeverTrumpers, but most slapped the line away, rejecting life in the real world. Switching metaphors, more than one NeverTrumper told me, “this is the hill I want to die on.”

Ted Cruz just called in the airstrike on their position on that hill.

#NeverTrump Reacts

#NeverTrump people, the dozen or so remaining, believe being principled means making perfect the enemy of good. Because of that limiting belief, #NeverTrumpers turned on Ted Cruz yesterday, as viciously as they turned on their other friends and loved ones who support Trump.

Senator Ted Cruz never went #NeverTrump, but a lot of NeverTrumpers believed he had. Glenn Beck, Dana Loesch, Ben Howe, and Erick Erickson expressed emotions ranging from depression to rage. Most of their comments centered around #NeverTrump’s disordered view of what “principled” means.

What Are Principles?

While people recognize many principles, most people recognize security as a key principle. Security is so important that, without it, no other principles are possible. In his book Principle-Centered Leadership, Steven Covey argues there are four fundamental dimensions of life: security, guidance, power, and wisdom.  He argues that principles are external. They are the lay of the land. Values, on the other hand, are internal. Values are the filters through which we see the land.

In other words, principles are observed and tested facts. Principles are the way the world really works. Values are how we navigate that world, and our navigation requires well-ordered security, guidance, power, and wisdom.

A friend (and unswerving conservatives) was a Cruz delegate from Missouri. You know him: State Senator John Lamping.

Principled Leadership

When Cruz dropped out and Trump’s nomination became certain, Senator Lamping immediately switched to Trump. Lamping’s example highlights Covey’s idea of principles and values. He sees principles as the way life works, and he used security, wisdom, guidance, and power to advance his values given that reality.

Politics is like war, and commander’s intent comes into play. Our intent is a more perfect union to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our descendants. When we find the situation on the battlefield to be different than we expected, we don’t abandon the fight and go back to the commander for a new plan. We do what’s necessary to achieve the objective.

This Cruz delegate did that. He realized that, with Antonin Scalia’s chair empty, a Clinton win would mean a final loss of that key objective. Rather than waiting for instructions, he improvised. He redirected his fire. Lamping sought to achieve the commander’s intent. He used his power to win, his guidance to choose tactics, his wisdom to break from past tactics, and his need for security to attack with vigor.

We call Lamping’s example “leadership.”

I’m pretty sure #NeverTrump would disagree with Covey and Lamping. Those #NeverTrumpers apparently see principles as internal and boolean. They also seem to believe principles are unseverable. Unseverable meaning every “principle” is equally important.

#NeverTrump’s Perverted Principles

To #NeverTrump, a person who agrees with 99 percent of our principles is as evil and dangerous as the person who agrees with zero percent. NeverTrumpers demand complete allegiance to every position they personally hold. Deviation is deviance. Deviance is a sin.

To #NeverTrump, there is no such thing as more conservative or less conservative. There is conservative, and there is progressive, and any amount of deviation from their orthodoxy is a total rejection of their orthodoxy.

According to Beck, Loesch, Erickson and their ilk, Ted Cruz exposed himself as “unprincipled” by endorsing Trump. Therefore, to the tiny and shrinking colony of #NeverTrump, Ted Cruz is no better than a progressive.

That light you see on the #NeverTrump hill is not John Winthrop’s shining city. It’s a colony of cultists setting themselves ablaze.

Read More
Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE