Taro T

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.

Danke. Had seen people pushing Pressler to run for PA governor and the PA part was what was focused on. Yeah, could see Jennings run for major office (gov, senate) in KY.

Pretty sure you're confusing him with Scott Pressler (sp?). The guy that was behind the grassroots get out the R vote in PA movement in the last election and is now working on overturning the D majority on the WI and PA top courts.

Or, they could transfer some workers from offices that are well/fully/over staffed to some of these critically understaffed offices. Believe it or not, in the private sector people get relocated all the time. You will have a very difficult time convincing us that none of the 300 workers that were laid off weren't underperforming nor superfluous. The private sector has been learning how to do with a lot larger cuts than 2.5% of the workforce.

Umm, couldn't somebody vote for him if they wanted to even if the 2 term limit were not revoked?

But what if they were cloned and still had the exact same perspectives as their original versions? (As long as we're discussing improbably unlikely events such as the removal of the 2 term limit for presidencies in this country, why not have some fun with it?)

So, again, shouldn't FDR and Reagan be options to select in the poll?

Well, since we're into impossibly unlikely hypotheticals, shouldn't FDR and Reagan be options?

That clip doesn't say that there'd be no property taxes. It implies there'd be a big shift in how property taxes on single unit residential dwellings are calculated moving towards something like what CA had (still has?) where property tax rates can't increase beyond what they were when the property was purchased/the revised property tax law was enacted. So the current owner gets a set in stone tax rate and the eventual buyer would get hit with a significantly higher rate when ownership transfers. Counterintutively, that change actually seems to have been a big catalyst for CA's taxes in general to start skyrocketing. Were they to try to go to a system with no income tax AND no property tax as suggested by the tweeter's take on the proposal would have 1 question. Just how high are the sales taxes, car registration fees, motel taxes, and business registration fees going to go up to?

The bottom cartoon's donkey should've been saying "no, we're defintiely not off course, maybe if we steer this way a little harder we'll start really going." More accurate representation of what their leaders have been saying in response to events of the past few months.

Hey, hey, hey, now. RESULTS are superfluous. INTENTIONS are what TRULY matter. And let's face it, they flat out win hands down on intentions. Why, any day now, all of CA will be connected by High Speed Rail, the entire country wil have high speed fiber internet, and COVID will not simply be reduced to being a flu on steriods but utterly eradicated. The progs just need a few $TRILLION more and the day after never to finally arrive. Stop being a hater that only judges others by their accomplishments and character. WORDS matter WAY more than actions. (Pretty sure am supposed to say something about "go back to India for even intimating that actions are more important than words" or the like at this point; but just don't feel that much of a lefty today.)

Guess the Mayor doesn't buy the arguments that nothing possibly could've been done to prevent or at least mitigate the damage from the wildfires. Durn democrat hating partisan hack. 😉

Nah, the powers that be in that party know that's not the reason. But they still hope to keep the plebes believing that, so they keep shouting it.

Well, considering his task force expires on July 4, 2026, probably not.

Seriously, you think if 45/47 is on that list that that particular tidbit wouldn't have come out by now? He flew on one of Epstein's planes from FLA up to NY once. If he ever flew on the Lolita Express it would've come out if not when Crossfire Hurricane were in full operation then during one of the several other investigations into him during 46's term.

Minor quibble, it was engineers that figured out how to power the space shuttle.

No, tax cuts in and of themselves aren't loans from the future. "Tax cuts" which are actually tax rate cuts pretty much always end up resulting in more revenue in government coffers within a year of taking effect. So, they actually end up reducing the amount of money the government takes from future generations by not having to issue as many bonds as otherwise necessary to cover current government expenses. And the last round of tax cuts DID increase government revenues as growth increased. The problem isn't "tax cuts" the problem is they are ALWAYS accompanied by additional spending and almost always by more additional spending than the rate cuts bring in thus increasing the budget deficit and further increasing the national debt. While in principle, targeted tax incentives can work, one needs to remember that they're typically enacted by politicians that aren't particularly proficient in the "science" of economics; and those politicians are heavily influenced by lobbyists who definitely have skin in the game to choose incentives that aren't necessarily targeted to the right places. So these typically end up counterproductive. As for the details of what will end up getting cut, you might be right that it'll be from Medicaid; but if the vast bulk of it is from fraud and waste then it won't be causing rural hospitals to close. MHO, YMMV. Personally am waiting to see what actually gets recommended for cutting before getting too upset or too happy about what will actually get cut. Fully expect Medicaid to be under the microscope as will the military and ALL other executive departments and agencies. But that, in and of itself, is a good thing. In theory, what DOGE is doing - finding where the government is wasting money and ferreting out fraud is excellent and is significantly overdue. Heck, if all they do is make all government spending auditable, that in itself would be a win. Am hoping that they do far more beneficial than that, but again, will wait to see what actually gets accomplished (both good and bad) before moving beyond simply being hopeful about it. And honestly didn't expect that we'd even see THIS level of attempting to bring accountability back to Washington.

A big chunk of the reason for the need to raise the debt ceiling is to, at a minimum, keep the 2021 tax cuts from sunsetting. Because regardless of how pretty much every past tax cut resulted in an increase in tax revenue, as the economy grew and the feds took in a smaller piece of a larger pie resulting in more revenue, the CBO continues to score all tax cuts, and tax increases btw, as purely stand alone events with no effect on the economy other decreasing or increasing revenues by exactly what those tax cuts/ new taxes would bring with no other changes. 47 is trying to cut taxes further than where they were in '24. With no debt ceiling increase, no tax cuts are possible. And, yes, the budget deficit and the national debt also routinely go up when tax cuts are enacted. But that's due to the typical spending blowout that accompanies the legislation providing for the tax cuts. Should they hold the line on spending, they shouldn't be raising the deficit by nearly a full $4T as last year's deficit was "only" $1.8T. So, without any signigicant changes to the budget from what it was in 2024, they'll increase the national debt by ~$2T. Personally, would really like to see that go down and expect a good way to move in the right direction is to significantly reduce fraud and waste so spending at worst holds steady and at best actually goes down and to also grow the economy. Work both sides of the financial equation for the 1st time since at minimum when the former Soviet Union broke up and we could reduce military spending significantly resulting in the so called "peace dividend." One final note, contrary to popular belief, ALL government spending is a tax. Whether it's paid by taxes, levies, whatever other word one would like to use for current taxes or by taking on debt; eventually every penny of it will have to be paid for and the way that happens is through taxes.

Umm, THAT ship sailed when 44 and the rest of the West turned a blind eye to Russia annexing Crimea. The question now isn't will Ukraine cede additional territory but rather how much. Would guess that it'll be more than it would've ceded had it accepted the ceasefire proposed in the first months of the conflict that Boris Johnson (in one of his last acts as PM and acting on the behalf of both the UK and the US) talked Zelensky out of accepting. But we shall see.

And THAT is why IIRC the RI judge (there's so many lawsuits currently in play, hard to keep track of them all) ordered DOGE and the Treasury Secretary to not just not access any files/servers/databases but also to delete anything they've currently obtained. And THAT in a TRO is truly d*mning of the judge's intentions. To tell them not to do anything with the data while the lawsuit is in motion seems reasonable. To tell them to get rid of it all which allows any bad actor an ability to delete potentially without any records of what they're deleting should they also manage to delete items from the current archives, seems rather shortsighted and premature at a minimum and rather nefarious in itself in a worst case.

You should've specificied a bit more precisely to "(h)ow anyone that isn't in a position considered to be "overhead" at one of these reseasrch institutions has a problem with it ..." as pretty sure those people have a BIG problem with it. 😉

You thought he was investigating Burisma for nepotism? 🤨