PC infected Navy Brass recommends discharge for Capt Owen Honors for so-called homophic lewd videos

So this is what our mighty Navy has come to, a collection of politically correct knee jerkers.

Or maybe just plain jerks?

As you might recall, the Navy had a hissy fit 4 years after the fact in the wake of the repeal of DADT when comedy videos produced by Executive Officer Owen Honors hit the public airwaves.

Some of the footage contained remarks that might be offensive to homosexuals. And of course homosexuals can now serve openly in our armed forces and take a bullet for their country. But, it’s apparently forbidden to poke jokes at them because they need extra protection for their feelings.

Or at least today’s PC conscience Navy seems to think so.

CBS News reports that the admiral conducting the investigation into the raunchy videos shown to the crew of the aircraft carrier Enterprise has recommended that Captain Owen Honors, who as the ship's executive officer, produced and starred in the videos, be discharged from the Navy.

Earlier, Honors had been relieved of his command, but this would kick him out of the Navy.

Navy Captain Owen Honors' Lewd VideosNavy Ship Videos Probe Could Hit Higher-Ups

Honors has a right to show cause why he should not be kicked out. He has submitted a 15-page written statement claiming that the videos were known and even tacitly encouraged by his superior officers.

His attorney, Charles Gittens, has been quoted as saying that the videos were not inappropriate by the standards that existed aboard Navy ships at the time they were shown in 2006 and 2007, and that they conveyed important safety messages to the crew.

The investigation, which will also decide what action to take against other senior officers who knew about the videos, is expected to be completed this week.

Bombshell Report: Mets owners in much worse financial shape than claimed

This article in the New York Post has uncovered that Fred and Jeff Wilpon are in a much greater financial bind than they said last week.



As a Mets fan for nearly 40 years, I have learned to never take the Wilpons at their word. If its true that the Mets are 700 million dollars in debt, then the Wilpons may indeed be trying to sell the Mets outright at the highest possible price.



May only wish is that the next owner has extremely deep pockets and would refuse to play second fiddle to the Yankees.



That would be a Mets fans dream.



The New York Post reports that the New York Mets owners are in a much tighter squeeze than they are letting on, The Post has learned, and they may be forced to sell a controlling stake in the team.



Fred Wilpon and his ownership team have been shopping a minority stake in the Amazin's to Wall Street titans and other deep-pocketed investors for at least three months, said a source who was approached.



Potential investors stand to get little or no say over the team, despite the high debt load and hefty asking price. "Why would I put up a couple hundred million and get no rights?" said one prospective buyer who passed on the offer.



Wilpon said Friday in a conference call announcing that the owners were seeking to sell a 20 to 25 percent stake that "it is prudent for us to explore our options at this point," implying that the process had just begun. In reality, the process has been going on for months, sources told The Post.



The team, owned by Sterling Equities, which is controlled by Wilpon and his son, Jeff, is worth between $750 million and $1 billion, once source said.



Forbes last year pegged the value at $858 million.



But the team has roughly $700 million of debt, and that should be subtracted from the valuation when calculating what an owner's stake is worth, sources said. Using the $858 million valuation and the $700 million in debt, a 25 percent stake in the free equity amounts to just $39.5 million -- not the $200 million asking price.



While Sterling's 60 percent stake in its cable network, SportsNet New York, could be worth hundreds of millions, it cannot be used to attract minority investors to the team, sources said.



Sterling would have to distribute any proceeds from the sale of its SNY stake to lenders under the terms of their credit agreement, according to three sources close to the situation.



Also, it cannot borrow any more against the team or SNY under the loan agreements, said a source with direct knowledge of the team's finances. The Wilpon family already raised more than $200 million this summer by borrowing against the Mets and SNY, sources said.



The Wilpons have been trying to replace roughly $750 million they lost by investing with convicted Ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff, a source said. In addition, they are now in settlement talks with Irving Picard, the trustee for the Madoff estate, who claims Sterling is a "net winner" that withdrew $48 million more from two Madoff funds than it invested.



Looking to raise several hundred million but hemmed in by debt, the Wilpons may be forced to sell a larger stake than they wish.



"If they can't find a buyer, they will need to sell a majority stake six months from now," said a source.



The Mets declined comment.

Florida Ruling Requires Government to Stop Implementing Obamacare

From Cato at Liberty

As I continue digesting Judge Vinson’s ruling, I notice two key things beyond the facts that the “individual mandate is unconstitutional”:
1. In performing his severability analysis — determining which parts of the overall legislation survive — the judge threw out all of Obamacare:

In sum, notwithstanding the fact that many of the provisions in the Act can stand independently without the individual mandate (as a technical and practical matter), it is reasonably “evident,” as I have discussed above, that the individual mandate was an essential and indispensable part of the health reform efforts, and that Congress did not believe other parts of the Act could (or it would want them to) survive independently.

I must conclude that the individual mandate and the remaining provisions are all inextricably bound together in purpose and must stand or fall as a single unit. The individual mandate cannot be severed. This conclusion is reached with full appreciation for the “normal rule” that reviewing courts should ordinarily refrain from invalidating more than the unconstitutional part of a statute, but non-severability is required based on the unique facts of this case and the particular aspects of the Act. This is not a situation that is likely to be repeated.

2. In discussing whether to issue an injunction – a judicial command to do or refrain from doing something — the judge determined that his declaratory judgment in this context was the same as an injunction. That is, a federal court saying that a piece of legislation is unconstitutional is effectively the same as a decision mandating the government to act:

Declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . . since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court. [Quoting a D.C. Circuit opinion written by none other than then-Judge Antonin Scalia]

In short, if I read the opinion (plus this final judgment) correctly — quite apart from both the lofty philosophical principles I applaud Judge Vinson for adopting and the nitty-gritty technical details of his individual mandate analysis — Obamacare is dead in its tracks.

Now, Judge Vinson himself or the Eleventh Circuit (or even the Supreme Court) may issue an emergency stay of this or any other part of the ruling, but as of right now, the federal government must stop implementing Obamacare.

NB: The New York Times and Washington Post report that Judge Vinson has already stayed his own ruling pending appeal, but this is an incorrect reading of the opinion, for the reasons stated above. Moreover, the court’s docket, which is now closed for the day, contains no such stay — nor has plaintiffs’ counsel received notice of one.