Divemedic

Guns Aren’t Probable Cause

A man is pulled over by the police for a minor traffic infraction. He notifies the cop that he is carrying a firearm and hands over his concealed weapons permit. The cop said: “Once I knew he had a gun, that gave me reason to search for more contraband.” Note that the cop had no reason to believe that there was any crime being committed- after all, the man had a permit and had notified the cop that he was carrying. Still, the cop used that information to pull the man from his car, handcuff him, and leave him locked in the back seat of his patrol car for more than 30 minutes while the cop tore through and searched his vehicle.

I had a similar run in back in 2001 with an Orange county deputy in Orlando, and he threatened to kill me. That’s why I don’t tell cops shit. In this case, the victim of this roid raging idiot sued. Anyhow, here is a lawyer’s take on this case.

Some of the things that this lawyer says, and I grant that they are sensible pieces of advice, is upsetting to me. They are:

  • Keep your hands visible
  • Don’t make any sudden moves
  • Don’t reach for anything, not even your wallet

Because cops are nervous, they tend to overreact, and will assume that you are about to use a weapon.

Cops are basically scared little boys with weapons and carte blanche to use them to kill you. That’s a bad combination, and something that speaks volumes about American law and American policing. You are the enemy and a threat- despite the fact that there are 20 million traffic stops per year and only about 120 of them result in cops being shot. (That’s a 0.000006% chance that any given traffic stop will involve cops being shot.) Cops are more likely to have a heart attack on duty, yet they don’t go around shooting people that sell fatty food.

By Divemedic, ago

Intel

Here is a pamphlet that is being distributed by the insurgents (pdf warning, but it’s hosted here) at ANTIFA and BLM. It’s called “Why we break windows.” Here is an excerpt:

property destruction is an effective tactic. From the Boston Tea Party to the demonstrations against the 1999 World Trade Organization summit in Seattle, property destruction has been an essential part of many struggles. It can pressure or punish opponents by inflicting an economic cost.

You know what else punishes opponents who would break my shit? Bullets. That doesn’t mean that shooting people is a valid form of discussion or protest. Then the rationalize it thusly:

Shop windows represent segregation. They are invisible barriers. Like so much in this society, they simultaneously offer a view of “the good life” and block access to it. In a polarizing economy, shop windows taunt the poor with commodities they cannot afford, status and security they will accumulate so much wealth at everyone else’s expense. In this situation, never attain. For millions upon millions, the healthy food, medicines, and other goods they need are the breadth of an entire social class away from them, a gulf they will not cross in a lifetime of hard work—a gulf represented by half an inch of plate glass.

Property rights are anathema to commies. They don’t want to work for it, but they want it. So they take it. At the end of the day, that is socialism and communism is- the theft of goods and services, wrapped up in a pretty bow. That’s why so many who espouse these theories imagine themselves as sitting around writing shitty poetry while other, less educated and intelligent folks, slave away in the gulags.

Still, I am not here to psychoanalyze their behavior. The point of this post is twofold:

  • To show that there is no discussion, reasoning, or changing the minds of those who are trying to overthrow our very way of life, and
  • To point out that there is only one way out of this, albeit with two possible outcomes

This is the reasoning that they give for breaking windows:

It is not a coincidence that shop windows have been targeted in protests against police violence. Businesses, be they multinational or local, are the tax base that pays for police, and without police they would not be able to addressing protests directly to the police is oblique, for the police answer to business owners and politicians, not to public opinion. It is much more direct to target their bosses, the capitalists themselves. Cost them enough money in smashed windows, and maybe they’ll think twice about what kind of policing they call for.

They are wrong. The police aren’t there to keep the poor people poor. No, the police are there to ensure that the accused receive a free trial. If the police cease protecting society from those who would destroy their property, those who wish to protect their property will simply begin killing those who would destroy and steal their property. The posse rides out in search of the horse thief, then the posse returns with the horse but not the thief.

as long as such inequalities persist, people are bound to lash out against them via property destruction as well as other tactics. Anyone who truly desires to see an end to property destruction should hasten to bring about the end of property itself. Then, at last, the only reason to break windows would be thrill seeking.

There is no reasoning with this attitude. They are saying, “Give me your property, or I will destroy it.” There can be no negotiation here- the choices are surrender; or eliminate.

I seriously thought about putting some funny memes here, but I want people to know just how deadly serious I am about this, so no snide jokes with quotes from movies, just a solemn vow- when it kicks off, I may not survive, but it is my sincere hope that I take dozens of those commie bastards with me, and I won’t fight fair.

If you read their own materials, some listed below, but pay particular attention to the Violence of Legitimacy, they declare violence as being defined as “harm or threat that violates consent.” I think that’s a valid definition. Of course, they go on to justify their own violence as being self defense by saying this:

isn’t it violent to live on colonized territory, destroying ecosystems through our daily consumption and benefitting from economic relations that are forced on others at gunpoint?

To them, owning property is wrong because they don’t own it. So they destroy or take what they want. If you then defend your property from their theft or vandalism, you are committing violence that they can then defend themselves from. I tried to read the entire document, but it went on for nearly 4,000 words, all of it attempting to justify their violent actions.

Here it is- these guys are nothing more than violent thieves who would rather steal or destroy our property than work for property of their own. The fact that they are openly calling for violence is enough to convince me that there is no reasoning with them. The only course of action left is civil war. That’s where we are, and that is where we are headed.

Everything else is just a preamble.

More Intelligence Material

Why All the Smashy-Smashy? A Beginner’s Guide to Targeted Property Destruction.

Ferguson: In Defense of Rioting

The Illegitimacy of Violence, the Violence of Legitimacy:

By Divemedic, ago

Trolling

I spent most of the morning, trolling the left over Rob Reiner’s death. That fucking leftist retard spend weeks after Charlie Kirk was murdered, taunting us. Fuck him and fuck them.

I am no longer willing to be the bigger person.

By Divemedic, ago

Fed Activity

The Federal Reserve Bank cut the funds rate by another quarter point last week, and at the same time, it is buying about $350 billion in Treasuries. This should be causing interest yields on long term T-bills to drop.

But it isn’t.

This is, in my opinion, an ominous sign. When the Fed buys treasuries and cuts rates, it is putting more dollars into circulation, which should have the effect of having more dollars chase a (slightly) smaller number of Treasuries. This increases demand for treasuries while reducing supply, which should drive down rates, but it isn’t. This seems counterintuitive.

The Fed controls short-term rates.
Markets control long-term rates.
It appears that right now, markets don’t believe inflation, deficits, or Treasury supply are under control.

For years after 2008, the term premium was near zero or negative because:

  • Inflation was dormant
  • Deficits felt manageable
  • Global demand for “safe assets” was enormous
  • Central banks suppressed volatility

That era is over.

Now investors demand compensation for:

  • Persistent inflation risk
  • Fiscal dominance (monetary policy subordinated to debt financing)
  • Political dysfunction
  • Rising debt-to-GDP
  • Uncertain future Fed independence

This term premium alone is adding 100–150+ basis points to long yields, kind of like people with poor credit paying higher interest rates.

In a normal cycle:

Fed cuts monetary supply→ growth slows → inflation falls → long rates drop

Today:

Fed cuts monetary supply→ deficits widen → Treasury issuance rises → inflation risk persists → long rates stay high

This is called a supply-driven yield curve.

In this case, investors are looking 10, 20, and 30 years into the future, and the risks of holding IOUs from the Federal government are no longer near zero. They are somewhat higher, and therefore the risk of a potential deadbeat Federal government not being able to repay you, or repaying you in inflated, less valuable dollars is higher, and investors want to be compensated for this increased risk.

Markets see:

  • Structural labor shortages
  • Re-shoring and inflationary monetary policies
  • Aging demographics
  • Entitlement growth with no funding (Social Security)
  • Defense and geopolitical spending locked in

So the belief is that the Fed may cut rates now, but inflation or fiscal pressures will force higher rates later on down the road. This is becoming more and more possible the longer you peer into the future. That expectation keeps long rates high.

As more and more people come to realize that the national monetary issues are going to be a problem, the more that they will be apprehensive about the future. Perception is what drives faith in the dollar, and once we reach a critical tipping point, the dollar WILL collapse.

Spending = Taxes + Borrowing + Inflation (monetization)

For spending to constantly increase, as it has been doing, then the other three must increase. Since we know that spending CAN’T decrease because any politician that proposes meaningful cuts can measure his career with a cesium clock, the three supplies of cash (taxes, borrowing, and inflation) must continue to rise. The probability of a crash caused by a loss of financial credibility is low, but rising (10–20% over the next 20 years).

There are only two sustainable endgames:

A. Explicit choices

  • Raise taxes
  • Reform entitlements (drastic cuts to Social Security and Medicare)
  • Reduce spending growth
  • Painful, honest, stabilizing.

This isn’t likely to happen in today’s environment- the younger generation is screaming for MORE spending, not less. You think the dollar is taking a beating now? Wait until the government passes Medicare for all. Democrats spending more when they win in 2026 (which is looking more and more likely) and again in 2028 (also looking more and more likely) will result in vastly increased government spending.

B. Implicit choices

  • Debase and inflate the currency so you can pay yesterday’s debt with today’s less valuable dollar
  • Suppress rates by pressuring the Fed and QE
  • Let purchasing power erode

Politically easier. Economically stealthy. Socially corrosive, kicking the can down the road.

History suggests governments choose B until forced into A.

Bottom line

The future is not collapse, but it is painful. At least for the next decade. (The US economy is large and has a lot of inertia). Absent reform, the U.S. likely faces:

  • Higher average inflation
  • Lower real returns
  • More volatility
  • Less policy credibility
  • A gradual transfer from savers to debtors

The danger is not that everything breaks tomorrow. The danger is that everything slowly works worse, and by the time the costs are obvious, the choices are far harsher. The last item, above, means that you need to hold things that aren’t denominated in dollars. The goal is not to “beat the system,” but to avoid being silently taxed by it. Historically, people who do best focus on resilience, diversification, and optionality, not prediction.

Assets that tend to be hurt most in inflationary markets:

  • Long-duration bonds
  • Large cash balances
  • Fixed pensions not inflation-indexed
  • Assets dependent on stable real rates

Cash is liquidity insurance, not wealth storage.

  • Hold 3-6 months of expenses in cash or T-bills
  • Use short-duration instruments (T-bills, money markets)
  • Avoid long-term fixed-rate instruments unless yields are clearly compensating you.
  • High T-bill rates right now are actually helpful because they reduce cash drag temporarily. Just don’t take bills that are long term. In the longer term, you will be beaten by inflation.

Gold and other PMs are non productive assets. Because of this they historically:

  • Protect against monetary disorder
  • Do not reliably produce real growth
  • Best used as insurance, not an engine. Don’t hold more than 15% of your investments in PMs

Skills and income resilience beat portfolios

This is the part people underestimate. In every inflationary / fiscally stressed era, earners with scarce skills outperform savers and investors. If you can adjust income, negotiate pay, shift roles, or add consulting or side income, you are far more protected than someone relying solely on fixed returns.

The risk ahead isn’t sudden ruin for most people, it’s slow erosion of purchasing power and forced choices at bad times.

Individuals who:

  • stay liquid but invested,
  • avoid fixed claims,
  • own pricing power,
  • diversify quietly,
  • and keep their earning ability strong

tend to come through these periods intact and often ahead of those who tried to time the crisis.

Build skills, build wealth, build a stable base.

By Divemedic, ago

Zone 2

With this news, Salt Lake City is now a Zone 2 city- authorities have ceded some measure of lawful control to Antifa.

By Divemedic, ago

Reader Mail

A reader sent me this by email, rather than simply commenting on the post, and I usually throw those out. However, this one seemed a bit interesting to me, so here we go:

JFK had a top income tax rate of 90% and this was the period of highest growth in our economy.  Perhaps you need to check your assumptions.

Obviously, he knew what he was doing.  Back then, in figuring out your income, you could deduct things like starting factories and doing research on consumer products.  In short. doing things that benefited other people allowed the brainiac to pay less tax.  

Even though top marginal tax rates were 70%–91% in the 1950s–1970s, the actual effective tax rates paid by high-income individuals were dramatically lower. Almost nobody really paid 91% — or anything close to it.

In the 1950s and early 1960s:

The top marginal rate was 91%, but it applied only to taxable income above about $400,000 (over $4 million in today’s dollars), and “taxable income” was drastically reduced by:

  • Unlimited business expense deductions
  • Oil & gas depletion allowances
  • Real-estate depreciation
  • Investment tax preferences
  • Income shifting to corporations
  • Trust structures
  • Foundations
  • Tax-exempt municipal bonds
  • Deferral strategies

Thus, almost nobody actually reported enough taxable income for the 91% bracket to matter. Economists often say the 91% rate existed mostly on paper. Congressional and Treasury studies from the era showed that the average effective tax rate for high-income earners was typically 30–40%, but many wealthy individuals paid 15–25% after shelters while some paid near zero using aggressive loopholes (especially in real estate and oil).

President Kennedy even complained publicly that: “A millionaire may pay less taxes than his secretary.”

Sound familiar? This wasn’t a new phenomenon.

The 1986 Tax Reform Act (Reagan) slashed rates by 50% to 28% but eliminated many shelters — and ironically, many high-income individuals paid more tax after the reform, despite the lower rates. Because the tax code back then allowed:

  • Unlimited itemized deductions
  • Very generous depreciation schedules
  • Income averaging
  • Tax-free corporate perks (cars, housing, travel)
  • Tax-exempt investments
  • Turning salary into capital gains
  • Family foundations and trusts
  • Personal holding companies
  • Business losses used to offset income
  • The famous “oil depletion allowance”

In short, the rich could make most of their income disappear for tax purposes. This is why economists say the old system was “high rate / high avoidance,” whereas today’s system is more “lower rate / broader base.”

The other part of this was the minimum tax rate of 20%, which applied to everyone up to $2,000 per year ($20,000 per year in today’s dollar). Picture this- a person making $20,000 a year would owe $4,000 of it in taxes, and the poor didn’t have loopholes to exploit.

So don’t tell me how they were so good at taxing the rich back in the 60’s. It was JFK who advocated for a cut in tax rates and the elimination of many tax loopholes. The Revenue act of 1964 was passed after his death, and cut the top rate from 91% to 70%, but eliminated many tax loopholes. Still, there were many of them left, and most weren’t eliminated until Reagan lowered the tax rate even further while eliminating many tax write-offs. See the Laffer curve on how lowering taxes actually increases revenue.

By Divemedic, ago

Uh, Drug Dealer

A woman is complaining that her husband is refusing to take his medication or eat because he is being held in Florida’s Alligator Alcatraz. He is asking to be deported because he now hates this country.

They are calling it inhumane and have complained to Amnesty International.

The rest of the story?

He is an illegal immigrant that has had a deportation order for nearly 30 years since he was convicted of being a Cocaine dealer.

I don’t care. Ship his criminal ass back to Cuba. We don’t need more criminal drug dealers. We have plenty of those already.

By Divemedic, ago

Board Certification

What do you know, as of today, I am a board certified Nurse Manager. This is in support of my goal to move on from direct patient care, and get a job that is away from what has, to me, become a dead end job with no chance of promotion.

This latest certification is my first management certification and is in addition to my 3 other board certifications, although those three are purely clinical.

Sooner or later, I will have so many qualifications, I will be out of here. Now to begin working on the next one…

By Divemedic, ago

Don’t Forget

The same people are making these statements:

  • Charlie Kirk deserved to be killed because some people accused him of being a racist or transphobe
  • Illegal immigrants deserve a full trial with years of hearings for each deportation
  • The crews of terrorists also deserve due process and full trials
  • A woman has full autonomy over what is inside of her body, so abortion is her choice
  • A woman doesn’t control her body when it comes to COVID vaccines- those are mandatory

If the left didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any standards at all.

By Divemedic, ago