Purge opposition

Scary, Indeed

Going back to the DSA manifesto I posted about the other day: I want to talk about the changes to our Constitution that the Democrat party wants to enact. I don’t want to talk about the socialist “give me free shit” they always use to entice the useful idiots, because that’s the same old stuff they have been pushing for a decade. No, its their desired changes to our government that scare me. All quotes taken directly from the new DSA website.

  • Replace the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.

This is the scariest of the proposals. Making the supreme court and the executive subordinate to Congress would require that we either rewrite or completely ignore the Constitution. We would go from three co-equal branches of government to a politburo that can literally do whatever it wants. There are absolutely no checks or balances to this system.

  • Replace the two-party system with a multi-party democracy.
  • Expand the House of Representatives, implement proportional representation and ranked choice voting in all elections, and abolish the Senate.

Expanding the House and eliminating the Senate was already partially done when we switched to the direct election of Senators, but doing it the way that the DSA wants to do it would take us from a bicameral legislature.

The framers of the Constitution designed a bicameral system during the 1787 Constitutional Convention to achieve three primary goals:

  • Checks and Balances: Dividing legislative power to ensure that no single house can dominate the government. All bills must be passed by both chambers in identical form before becoming law.
  • Fair Representation: The system, born out of the Connecticut Compromise, balances the interests of highly populated states (represented proportionally in the House) with smaller states (given equal representation in the Senate). This is also why they want to get rid of the electoral college.
  • Deliberation: The requirement of a “concurrent majority” promotes thorough debate and prevents hasty, emotionally driven legislation.

The next thing they want is: Establish public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries to ensure democratic control and accountability to the people. What they mean is that their new expanded House will have control.

Of course, they can’t simply hand that much power over to a potential Trump, so they need to make sure this absolute power lies only in their hands. To that end, they are going to:

  • Legalize migration,
  • grant amnesty for all immigrants regardless of status,
  • provide a path to citizenship for all permanent residents,
  • end visa caps and quotas.
  • Extend full voting rights to all permanent U.S. residents
  • restore the right to vote for incarcerated people and people with criminal convictions. 

This is full on communism. There is no other way to put it. It’s coming, and I have been warning of this since 2020. I have already heard people telling me “that will never happen. They will never get the votes.”

The fact is, most people vote party, or likeability, race, or some other factor. Most voters don’t understand or keep up with the issues. They want sound bites, and the Democrat party is promising them free shit. That’s why the socialists are slowing taking over the Democratic party, which is moving more and more to the left with every passing day. Hundreds of socialists are in political office all over the nation. They are making far more inroads to power than are the Libertarians. Even St Petersburg, Florida has a socialist in office, and more coming, as they run as Democrats.

In all, 28 socialist candidates have won Democratic primaries this cycle. NYC has an openly communist mayor, and is about to get two communist congressional representatives. Wisconsin is likely to get a communist governor this election cycle. The entire country is shifting to communism.

There are two outcomes, well, three:

  • Civil War
  • Communist dictatorship
  • Both

Make fun of me, refuse to believe me, whatever. It’s coming.

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

Not 2 million

Harris claims that she is going to use executive orders to institute an import ban on “assault weapons” and have a mandatory “buyback” of the 2 million “assault weapons” that are in the US. Here she is in 2019, outlining her plan:

She is a lying stupid wannabe dictator. First off, there are about 50 million AR15s in this country. She also says that she is going to do it without Congress.

These people in Washington, DC have failed to have the courage. How many of you guys as college students had to have a drill during high school, or middle school, or elementary school, or even in college, where you learned that you had to hide in a closet…When elected, of Congress fails to act- I’ll give them 100 days to put a bill on my desk for signature- and of they do not do it, I will put in place by executive action a comprehensive background check requirement, and a ban on assault weapons, on the importation of assault weapons into our country. I’m done. [applause]

No. How about go fuck yourself. Soon, it will be time to stop talking. There will be no point in having a discussion with people who do not respect the Constitution, the rule of law, or the limits on the power of the executive. Soon, it will be time to shut down the blog.

Four years ago, I predicted that Trump would never again see the inside of the Whitehouse. Many people said that I was wrong. I also declared that we were seeing a communist takeover of our nation. I was laughed at and told that I was ridiculous. (The blogger who said that is still blogging, but that blog now reads like a lonely cat lady blog.) That last bit of information made me remember this clip.

Still, it’s going to get uglier that we can possibly imagine.

By Divemedic, ago

This is Why the US Will Fall

I want you to look at this story. The left entered the House gallery and “protested” in an attempt to derail Congress. Not one of them was charged with interfering with the government before being locked up for years while awaiting trial.

The “protesters” grabbed a cop and dragged him across the ground. None of them were arrested.

The left is going to overthrow the government, and the right will do nothing but sit around arguing about shit that is completely irrelevant. It’s the biggest problem that I have with libertarians, and it keeps rearing its head. The left is using violence to alter an election, again. Meanwhile, the right is busy arguing about semantics.

This is why the left will win.

By Divemedic, ago

You Need a Program to Identify the Acts of the Play

So here it is, to get you caught up:

  1. They tried to smear him in 2016 by claiming Russian collusion. The evidence, as it turns out, was fake.
  2. they tried impeaching him
  3. they tried impeaching him again
  4. they tried suing him into the poorhouse
  5. they filed tons of criminal charges against him, finally getting a conviction on some rather dubious legal grounds. When SCOTUS issued the ruling on Presidential immunity, the court delayed sentencing.
  6. All of the other cases were dead in the water. The left went apoplectic.

Then there was an assassination attempt on Trump’s life. In order for this event to have happened, at least one of two things must be true:

  • The Secret Service is entirely incompetent.
  • The Secret Service was complicit in the attempt.

There are no other possibilities. Where I am leaning is complicity.

In either event, the attempt failed. Then the poll numbers came out, and Trump’s numbers looked even better. It was at this point that Biden reversed course and decided to drop out of the race, citing health concerns. So now there are only two possibilities:

  1. Biden is too addled and mentally incompetent to run for office, which makes him too addled to hold the office of President, and he needs to go under the 25th Amendment. Now.
  2. Or, he resigned because his numbers looked so bad that it was unlikely that he would beat Trump in the election. In this case, the left is guilty of election tampering. The Democrat party can no longer claim to “support democracy(tm)”

No matter which of the above is true, welcome to banana republic status.

By Divemedic, ago

Getting Worse

Yes, the first information from a major event is usually wrong. It’s called the ‘fog of war’ and it’s a well known phenomenon. The problem is that the news coming out from Trump’s attempted assassination keeps making the entire even glow brighter as time goes on.

The latest is that the police spotted the shooter on that roof at 5:45, called it in and took a picture of him. Trump didn’t take the stage until 6:05. The shots were fired at 6:11.

So when the suspicious person was called in, why did Trump’s detail still allow him to take the stage? Why didn’t anyone go over there and check it out? Was this incompetence? Complacency? Or something more sinister?

We will never know the truth.

By Divemedic, ago

So Far

Here is what we know about the Trump assassination attempt so far:

  1. a random 20 year old acting completely alone walked to within 150 yards of a presidential campaign rally with a rifle
  2. climbed onto a rooftop, fully within the view of two Secret Service sniper teams
  3. even though multiple people told the authorities that there was a man on the roof top with a rifle, only one of the even investigated, and he ran away without telling anyone else once the 20 year old pointed a gun at him
  4. set up his shot and fired without anyone intervening
  5. with no help from anyone.
  6. He once tried to join his school’s rifle club, but his aim was so bad he hit the side wall instead of the end wall where the target was, so didn’t make the team
  7. He was also so politically radical as to attempt an assassination, but not radical enough to have ever posted any political writings or commentary on any social media site, ever
  8. He also wrote no manifesto and left behind no indication about why he did it
  9. The password and encryption on his cell phone is so airtight that the entire Federal government can’t crack it
  10. He committed only two political acts before attempting to kill the Republican candidate, and that was to register as a Republican and donate $15 to Act Blue.

You must believe this and ask no questions about it, or else you are a conspiracy theorist. One thing we know about assassination attempts is that there’s never any conspiring involved.

Things are going to deteriorate at a faster rate. It’s going to seem blindingly fast in retrospect.

By Divemedic, ago

Domestic Enemies

The FBI is claiming that the Trump shooting yesterday is domestic terrorism. I don’t like it. It’s becoming more obvious to me that it was a false flag. This wasn’t a psychotic nut bag gunning down a classroom full of kids, this was a directed, determined assassin taking a shot at the candidate who the left already tried to impeach, prosecute, and sue out of the race.

Are they about to play some sort of game where they declare Trump or Republicans to be terrorists?

What is the play here?

By Divemedic, ago