Divemedic

On the Epstein Files

Attorney Andrew Branca says it best:

one could believe what the Trump administration is explicitly telling us–they HAD good reason to EXPECT that a careful review of the Epstein “files” in the possession of the prior administration would lead to evidence of criminal conduct that could be prosecuted–but that the ACTUAL review of what is available to them does NOT amount to evidence of prosecutable criminal conduct.

That could be because the criminal conduct was much more limited than imagined–perhaps it was largely Epstein who was the actual monster, and he’s already facing the forever consequences of that conduct?

Or it could be because the monstrous conduct WAS widespread but that the EVIDENCE of that widespread criminality has been stripped from the “files” available to the current administration, due to no fault of Trump.

After all, Trump’s most vicious political enemies have been in possession of these “files” for years. If the conduct largely implicates those enemies, why would they NOT strip the evidence of their criminality from the files they knew would be available to Trump?

We can also be certain that if the “files” in the possession of Trump’s enemies had so much of a hint of Trump himself engaging in any of the alleged offenses against children, we would have learned of this notional evidence many, many years ago.

And yet we have not.

When there are hypothesis consistent with Trump acting in good faith, why does everyone who is purportedly a supporter of his administration so quick to jump to the conclusion that Trump is acting in bad faith?

I think that those files had a lot of high ranking people on them- from both political parties. I used to say that certain politicians like SCOTUS judges were acting oddly, as if someone had videos of them with Vietnamese prostitutes.

Blackmail only works if the information being used as leverage remains secret.

By Divemedic, ago

Thieving Politicians

The San Francisco Parks Alliance was a nonprofit NGO that partnered with the city government to solicit donations to build parks. They are under fire for spending $3.8 million in donations on staff bonuses, lavish pay, and swanky parties. No parks, though.

The CEO was a friend and assistant to the Mayor. His web page brags about how he ran non-profits all over the country. This is the kinds of NGOs that have been funneling taxpayer money to the left for decades. We are the ones funding the let’s subversive activities.

By Divemedic, ago

He Had a Gun

The local press has been criticizing police for their response on this call. Just out of curiosity, how do they think police should respond to a naked man armed with a gun that is charging at them? Do they really believe that such a person can be reasoned with, if only someone who specializes in mental health can talk to them?

Are they really this stupid?

By Divemedic, ago

Property Taxes

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis says that property taxes are nonsense, in that you are essentially paying rent to the government in exchange for owning property.

“You should own your property free and clear,” DeSantis said at a recent roundtable in Jacksonville. “I think to say that someone that’s been in their house for 35 years just has to keep ponying up money — you don’t own your home, if that’s the case.”

He’s right, but at the same time, things like police, fire, and schools need to be funded. The thing that surprised me about this article was that the state’s tax on real property accounts for 18% of county revenue, 17% of municipal revenue and between 50% and 60% of school district funding.

So the elimination of property taxes would mean that counties would have to cut 18% of their expenditures. Using Orange County (where Orlando is located) as an example, they have an annual budget of $7.2 billion. (pdf alert) That would mean that the county needs to cut $1.3 billion from its annual budget. From their budget, they spend money on:

In this budget, we have purposefully allocated resources to address critical areas that are essential to ensuring the well-being of our residents by investing in affordable housing, preserving the environment, fueling economic development, strengthening public safety, improving transportation, expanding mental and behavioral health services, and enhancing children and family services programs. We will also develop a plan for expanding services to homeless people.

Orange county’s property tax proceeds total about $969 million of that budget. Can they make some cuts?

  • $16.1 million is for affordable housing programs
  • Neighborhood Centers for Families (NCF) $7.5 million for mental health, early childhood development, youth empowerment, family support, and youth recreation.
  • The Citizens Review Panel (CRP) recommends grant funding for small and large nonprofit organizations that provide vital services to Orange County children, youth, and their families. CRP funding is budgeted at $4.1 million for the fiscal year 2025.
  • resources to advance environmental initiatives $100 million per year
  • Tourist Development Tax revenue budget for fiscal year 2025 is $345 million. Let businesses fund their own development.

Without even trying, I have found $472.7 million in cuts. That’s halfway to eliminating property taxes. It can be done. Government shouldn’t be an endless source of pork that is being used to buy votes. Government should stay out of our pockets and provide only essential services through taxes. They should ask for donations for any extra services.

By Divemedic, ago

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.

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.

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.

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.

By Divemedic, ago