You Can't Silence Us

Lies

 Two years ago, the Republicans caved by giving President Biden a blank check to borrow whatever and how ever much money he wanted to spend. On that day, the US debt stood at $31.46 Trillion. Within a month, the US had borrowed another Trillion dollars. Here we are with $36.21 Trillion in debt. (By the way, our national debt is the same now as it was on inauguration day, FYI)

They are borrowing money at incredible rates. We now are borrowing $1.5 Trillion each and every year.

It took this nation over 200 years to borrow a trillion dollars. Trump did it in seven months, Obama did it in only 6 months. It took Biden 9 months to borrow his first Trillion dollars, but he soon got better at it. His second trillion took three months, borrowing $2 trillion in his first year. In fact, he has increased the national debt by 118% in just two and a half years.

Biden increased the National Debt by 30% in four years, a total of $4.5 trillion.

President Trump increased the National Debt by 141% in his first four years.

Obama increased the debt by 194% in eight years.

President George W Bush borrowed his first trillion dollars in two and a half years. He borrowed his second trillion a year and a half later. Another two years, another $1 trillion. All told, President Bush borrowed $5 trillion in 8 years, increasing the national debt by 187%.

It took President Clinton 3 and a half years to borrow his first trillion dollars. All told, he borrowed $1.2 trillion in his first term, and $600 billion in his second. He increased the national debt by 140% in eight years.

George HW Bush borrowed his first trillion in 3 years, and he increased the National debt by 170% in four years.

Reagan borrowed his first trillion in 6 years, and doubled the National debt during his eight years in the White House.

Carter increased the National debt by 150%, but “only” borrowed $300 billion in 4 years. I guess that was when $1 Billion was real money.

Ford increased the debt by 147% in 3 years., Nixon by 135% in 5 years, Johnson by 116% in 6 years, Kennedy by 106% in 2 years, Eisenhower by 108% in eight years.

Democrats, and Republicans, both in a contest to see who can spend the most in our society of “how much can you give me if I vote for you.”

Remember when the Biden spokeswoman told us that borrowing trillions didn’t cost anything because it was already accounted for? Note that we weren’t really allowed to increase the debt until we divorced from the gold standard during the Nixon administration. Ever since then, spend, spend, spend. This nation creates money as fast as computers can create the 1′ and 0’s at the Fed. This can’t continue. By definition, anything that can’t continue, won’t. There is no amount of voting that will fix this.

People who have read this post: 162
By Divemedic, ago

Montezuma

Biology class went on a summer trip to South America: 2 adults, 10 high school students. They came in with diarrhea. The biology teacher who took them says “It can’t have been the water. We were drinking bottled water.”

I replied “What water did you use to brush your teeth?”

She says, “The water in the hotel.”

I ask, “Did your drinks have ice in them?”

Of course they did.

Yeah. Biology teacher.

People who have read this post: 462
By Divemedic, ago

Socialism, It’s Coming

AOC is upset that rich people control large businesses. It’s better, according to her, that she and the rest of the government get to do it. Bartenders are so much better at running things, you see.

They want the power to pick who gets what. They want to determine through government fiat who is rich and who is poor.

People who have read this post: 532
By Divemedic, ago

Free Speech?

A man attended protests around the Tampa area. He is alleged to have been using racial and anti-gay language at these protests. The leftists do what they always do- they post pictures of people on the opposing side in the hopes that someone will identify them. That’s what happened here: someone recognized and identified him. At no time is he alleged to have identified his employer during the protests, nor is he alleged to have ever worn uniform items while protesting. Still, he was fired from his job at the Largo Fire Department as a result of his behavior at the protests.

Stoffel’s actions were not consistent with the standards and trust the community expects and deserves. ~Largo Fire Department officials in a statement to the press

A private employer would be in a good position to fire Mr. Stoffel. However, his employer is the government.

The government cannot prohibit the free exercise of speech. Government employees who are not at work do not lose their Constitutional rights simply because the government signs their paychecks. Government employees can speak as private citizens on matters of public concern without fear of retaliation, but their speech can be restricted if it disrupts government operations or is part of their official job duties. Since Mr. Stoffel was protesting on his own time and did not at any time indicate that he was a government employee, he is free to speak his mind. This is a well established legal principle.

The governing constitutional standard, known as the Pickering test, is a flexible balancing inquiry pitting the interests of the government as an employer against the free speech interests of their employees.

  • speech spoken as an employee gets no constitutional protections. So the speech cannot be made as a part of an employee’s duties. Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006)
  • The speech must be one of concern to the general public. For example, speech complaining about your boss’ management style is not protected. Connick v. Myers (1983)
  • In Pickering v. Board of Education, a public school teacher was fired for publishing a “Letter to the Editor” that criticized the local school board’s allocation of school funds. The Court noted that teachers were “the members of a community most likely to have informed and definite opinions” about public school expenditures. This establishes that sometimes citizens who happen to be government employees can have an educated opinion.

Speaking as a citizen and speaking as an employee appear to be mutually exclusive: a speaker can speak either as one or the other. An employee speaks as a citizen whenever the speech is neither an employment grievance nor speech that a part of their professional duties. And while speech spoken as an employee is unprotected, when an employee speaks as a citizen, any reactive adverse employment action would be subjected to a constitutional scrutiny whenever that speech is about matters of public concern. Simple, right?

One other caveat: The speech can’t be detrimental to the mission of the employer. In City of San Diego v. Roe (2004), a police officer was fired for selling sexually explicit videos of himself stripping off a police uniform and masturbating. When the case eventually made it to SCOTUS, the court ruled that the officer had damaged the mission of his employer because he appeared in uniform in the video.

So let’s now take a look at Stoffel’s actions- he was engaged in various protests in the Tampa area. At no time did he announce that he was a firefighter, never appeared in any sort of clothing that identified that he was part of that fraternity, and the speech was not a part of his duties. Some speech, like a public employee’s social media posts considered racist, sexist, or homophobic, could be seen as matters of public concern.

In deciding if the speech is disruptive to the workplace, the court will consider the content of the speech, as well as its manner, time, and place. In this case, it was at a protest where people of both sides of the argument were present.

There was a similar case a few years ago in Lake county, where a teacher that had expressed his disagreement with the concept of gay marriage was terminated after a parent recognized him and started a public cancelling campaign. He sued, and they settled out of court, paying him an undisclosed sum. I posted about it here.

In my opinion, Mr. Stoffel has a good case. He should retain a lawyer and file a lawsuit.

People who have read this post: 265
By Divemedic, ago

Airstrikes

The left is losing their collective shit over Trump’s bombing of Iran. They are claiming that it’s unconstitutional. There are, as usual, Democrats claiming he should be impeached for it. DJT can’t take a dump without someone trying to impeach him for it. As far as it being unconstitutional, I would simply point out that every President since at least Eisenhower has taken military action without seeking the permission of Congress. The law simply says that he has to notify Congress within 48 hours. It doesn’t say HOW he has to notify them. I would send them a letter by certified mail. The courts have ruled that, when the law requires a notification be sent or given, that notification is complete upon mailing. Done. Keep the receipt.

There are also those on both sides who are making the claim that Iran is peaceful, not pursuing nukes, and the US shouldn’t be doing Israel’s bidding. Let’s talk about that. First, on Iran being peaceful. I was in the military for many of these incidents, and was actually there for some of them:

They are constantly holding the world hostage by capturing shipping as it passes through the Persian Gulf, mining the Persian Gulf, and supporting terrorism.

The claim that Iran isn’t pursuing nukes is simply wrong. They have enriched Uranium to more than 60%. There is no use for that level of enrichment, except for use as a weapon. Even the IAEA reports that Iran had 2700 centrifuges in place there, which was a violation of the Obama nuclear agreement. Sure, the Obama administration had the Iranians pinky swear that they wouldn’t make a nuclear bomb, and the Iranians would never lie, would they?

As you can see, Iran has been attacking US forces for more than 50 years. In this case, Israeli interests and US interests happen to be the same in this case, and I don’t have a problem with someone finally dealing with those assholes. Sure, we need to try for peace, but you can’t let other nations continually attack you and pretend that it isn’t happening.

Trump has used the US military exactly four times: Against Iran in 2025, Isis in 2025, ISIS in 2020, and LA in 2025. That’s far fewer than any of the last Presidents going all the way back to Herbert Hoover.

To those who would tell me that if I support this, I should go serve? I already did. I was in for six years, and did 2 combat tours. In the late 80s, I was in a bar less than an hour before it was bombed by terrorists. (I couldn’t find a link to the story.) I’ve been there. Look, most of the times that the US military has been used in the past 70 years, it was an unnecessary use of military force, and that includes the 1990 Gulf War. This case? I don’t have a problem with it. Iran needs to be brought to heel. Instead of taking half measures designed to “teach them a lesson” which they obviously aren’t learning, they need to have their war making factories destroyed.

People who have read this post: 717
By Divemedic, ago

Insurrection

The states of California and Oregon are in a state of insurrection. They are actively resisting the enforcement of Federal law in trying to keep their cheap labor.

CW2 has been coming for awhile now. We continue to inch closer. Like CW1, the Democrats will claim the war is about slave labor, but the real causes will be more nuanced and complicated than that.

Future historians might disagree, but I feel like the first shots were fired June 14, 2017.

People who have read this post: 543
By Divemedic, ago

Here They Go Again

Rioters in Oregon are again using fireworks and lasers to attack people. Lasers can cause permanent damage and blindness when aimed at the eyes. Sure, there are glasses for them, but at $325, they are pretty expensive. You know what else stops people from causing others permanent blindness by hitting them in the eye with a laser?

A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. 

Yep, you guessed it. If you see people in a riot, and those people are tossing explosives and aiming lasers at people’s eyes, shoot them in the face.

People who have read this post: 410
By Divemedic, ago

Juneteenth

Those of us who carry guns are often told that we don’t need guns to protect ourselves, we just need to remember that the robbers are just people trying to feed their families. If we just give them what they want, we will be fine. This assumes that robbery is merely a business transaction, and depends upon a criminal threatening violence being a moral and upstanding citizen.

What if he isn’t? What if that criminal is just someone who sees other people as mere objects who are simply standing in the way of their happiness and success? Killing you is no more problematic to such a person than stepping on a bug. That’s how things like this happen- a man in Miami is robbed, and hands over the goods. They kill him anyway.

The last two posts are why:

  • I carry a gun everywhere I go.
  • I don’t go to places where there are violence and crime.
  • I avoid crowds of feral negros.
  • I pay attention to my surroundings. More than once, we have left an event because I didn’t like the vibe.

Last night, we went shopping and then to a swanky restaurant in an artsy district of a nearby town. I had a filet, my wife had garlic mussels. I was dressed in khaki slacks and a loose fitting Guayabera shirt. It hid my 9mm Shield Plus with microdot sight and my can of pepper spray very well. That gives me a less lethal option for boorish behavior, and also gives me 14 rounds of “I am not going to die unless you come with me.”

I’m not willing to bet my life, or the life of my spouse, on a criminal’s sense of good will and conscience.

People who have read this post: 464
By Divemedic, ago

Defense Isn’t Magic

One opinion that I have had since I was in high school is this:

I don’t care what martial art you study, what color belt you have, or how skilled you are, physical defense has limits. A 6 year old with a black belt in karate can’t beat up a full grown adult. A 100 pound woman isn’t going to beat up a 250 pound man, unless that man is in poor physical condition.

That opinion wasn’t a popular one, but it’s true. Skill can only do so much, but at the end of the day, physical strength, stamina, and size are just as important. Let me show you:

That doesn’t mean that skill is to be ignored. It means that what skills you do have should be viewed through a realistic lens. A 100 pound woman still is far outclassed in strength. That 100 pound woman believing that taking some krav maga classes is going to enable her to take on and disarm a full sized man is going to give her the overconfidence to go places and get into situations that she is not equipped to handle.

She let her classes where she practices set moves against compliant adversaries give her the false confidence that she can take on grown men armed with weapons and prevail, when in reality, she can’t even take on a man when given a distinct advantage, and in this case, the man was holding back and trying not to hurt her.

The same is true of people who carry guns. Many people only carry in “bad neighborhoods” and allow that firearm to pull them into places where they wouldn’t go if they weren’t armed.

Have a realistic idea of what training and weapons do for you, what your capabilities are, and know how and where you should be. One thing that I have learned by taking BJJ is that I have flexibility as my advantage, but I don’t have the stamina and cardio of a 23 year old any longer. In many cases, a 22 year old will be stronger and will be in condition to outlast me in a protracted fight. In any hand to hand, I must endeavor to win the fight early, because I will lose a protracted battle.

Be realistic in your own assessment of your abilities.

People who have read this post: 340
By Divemedic, ago

There Goes the Jury Box

Florida passed a law making it illegal for illegal immigrants to enter the state. A Federal judge in Miami issued an order barring the state from enforcing the law, citing the supremacy clause, making the claim that only the Federal government can enforce immigration laws. When the Florida Attorney General told the court that law enforcement agencies weren’t subject to the order, the judge found him in contempt.

The courts are just as partisan and biased as the rest of the nation, and are becoming illegitimate as a result. The orders you get depend on the political stance of the judge in question, and not on the Constitution. I can prove it. Ask this same judge to put out an order telling the states that due to that same supremacy clause, no state can enforce any gun laws, because there are Federal gun laws. Likewise, drug laws, laws against murder, etc.

We all know what would happen.

People who have read this post: 591
By Divemedic, ago