Taro T

In principle, am glad he and the DoGE team are doing this. Not sure how wise it is to take that one on while the examination of the executive branch is nowhere near complete. Because there isn't a chance that any of the changes that are getting effected via executive action can be made permanent without Congressional approval via legislation and there isn't a snowball's chance in heck that Congress will be on board for ANY of it if they aren't just getting indirectly effected by this but now directly effected. And if there's one thing everybody in Congress can agree on, it's that their own personal spigots will never get turned off.

He's a self admitted troll. Why make his day by responding?

Fire the staffer if it actually was the staffer's fault. Understand why they even have Signal on their machines and if appropriate keep it and set up / refine protocols to ensure this doesn't happen again; if it shouldn't be on the machines, get it off ASAP and figure out why it was there in the 1st place. And when adding someone's info that will go into secure communications channels, for Christ's sake, VERIFY that the info is correct BEFORE sending classified/secret/etc. communications to that individual on the secure communication channel. There should be repercussions for those directly responsible for this snafu. Whether this was due to incompetence or maliciousness, there should be appropriate consequences. And verify that Goldberg got these communications in the manner he claims. I.e., verify that someone didn't try to verify that the number he has is the number they thought they were entering and that he didn't either directly or indirectly let the verifier believe it was the correct number. Fortunately this seems to be a case of "no harm, no foul" and this is giving the administration an understanding that they need to be better with how they handle secure / sensitive information. Internally, this needs to be treated as an opportunity to do better.

We'll fight tooth and nail to fight tyranny, unless of course the tyrants bring Lite Brites. In which case we'll cower under covers like the sad little putzes we truly are.

Didn't say it was the point of the post. But that claim that there were "surpluses in the late 90's" is a personal pet peeve.

We're in agreement on the fact that they SHOULDN'T have called it Snow White. BUT you are missing the point that the people that MADE the movie WANTED to completely scrap the story while KEEPING the original characters. They did EXACTLY what they wanted to do. The ridiculousness is that they managed to convince people to give them hundreds of millions of dollars to do just that. And no doubt that when it fails spectacularly they will blame THAT failure on the viewers/public. It won't be their fault for being creatively deficient hacks who view their proper role in the entertainment industry as being woke scolds rather than being actual entertainers, though any cogent postmortem would determine that to be the cause.

We did NOT have true budget surpluses. ONLY by including FICA revenues as general revenue was there a surplus. And those have ALWAYS been earmarked to be spent as payments to retired workers since they day the government collected them. The national debt increased in those years that we had "surpluses" while 42 was in office.

They couldn't call it something else. The people that made it WANTED it to completely retell the story through their narrow lens and the people that greenlighted it knew they'd never be able to pay back the production costs if it were a completely different story with even the characters being originals. Hopefully this ends up such a colossal disaster that the lessons of the all female lead Ghostbusters remake finally get learned.

Wow, you expect his looks are going to improve that much? He's sure to keep it going if those are the results. 😉

Why would they bother buying something else when they want to live on what ostensibly was yours? You've said numerous times that they should be able to live wherever they want. If they want to live where you live, why stop them from their God given right to do so? You've certainly got the room for them.

So how many squatters on your land or in your apartment are you cool with?

Reports are that he's accused of 3.b.VII.

Unless you are determined to be an inadmissible aiien in which case your "green card" gets revoked. It appears that he is being accused of being an inadmissible alien under the following statute. Title 8 U.S.C. 1182 §1182. Inadmissible aliens (a) Classes of aliens ineligible for visas or admission Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States: ... (3) Security and related grounds ... (B) Terrorist activities (i) In general Any alien who- (I) has engaged in a terrorist activity; (II) a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv)); (III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity; (IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of- (aa) a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or (bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity; (V) is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi); (VI) is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization; (VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization; (VIII) has received military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or (IX) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years, is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity. (ii) Exception Subclause (IX) of clause (i) does not apply to a spouse or child- (I) who did not know or should not reasonably have known of the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible under this section; or (II) whom the consular officer or Attorney General has reasonable grounds to believe has renounced the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible under this section. (iii) "Terrorist activity" defined As used in this chapter, the term "terrorist activity" means any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if it had been committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) and which involves any of the following: (I) The highjacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle). (II) The seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained. (III) A violent attack upon an internationally protected person (as defined in section 1116(b)(4) of title 18) or upon the liberty of such a person. (IV) An assassination. (V) The use of any- (a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device, or (b) explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property. (VI) A threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing. (iv) "Engage in terrorist activity" defined As used in this chapter, the term "engage in terrorist activity" means, in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization- (I) to commit or to incite to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity; (II) to prepare or plan a terrorist activity; (III) to gather information on potential targets for terrorist activity; (IV) to solicit funds or other things of value for- (aa) a terrorist activity; (bb) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or (cc) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization; (V) to solicit any individual- (aa) to engage in conduct otherwise described in this subsection; (bb) for membership in a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or (cc) for membership in a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III) unless the solicitor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization; or (VI) to commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training- (aa) for the commission of a terrorist activity; (bb) to any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably should know, has committed or plans to commit a terrorist activity; (cc) to a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi) or to any member of such an organization; or (dd) to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), or to any member of such an organization, unless the actor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the actor did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization. (v) "Representative" defined As used in this paragraph, the term "representative" includes an officer, official, or spokesman of an organization, and any person who directs, counsels, commands, or induces an organization or its members to engage in terrorist activity. (vi) "Terrorist organization" defined As used in this section, the term "terrorist organization" means an organization- (I) designated under section 1189 of this title; (II) otherwise designated, upon publication in the Federal Register, by the Secretary of State in consultation with or upon the request of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security, as a terrorist organization, after finding that the organization engages in the activities described in subclauses (I) through (VI) of clause (iv); or (III) that is a group of two or more individuals, whether organized or not, which engages in, or has a subgroup which engages in, the activities described in subclauses (I) through (VI) of clause (iv).

Not on your audience to look your claims up. Talk about a lazy bastage. Not going to get too worked up over a group based out of South Africa (a known bastion of freedom both historically and recently 😒 ) that has lost funding griping about it and then subsequently adjusting their rating of the country responsible for that loss of funding. But, you, Petey, go run with it. Have fun with that.

Well, without knowing what group it is, it's pretty tough to get bent out of shape over it. And if this particular group lost funding courtesy of the DoGE inquiries into US government spending, will take it with a HUGE grain of salt.