It’s memeworthy, but the caffeine hasn’t hit critical mass yet.
Be me: Send state and federal tax returns, Feb 26
Both tax returns reach Portland, OR, Feb 28. Federal arrives in Cincinnatti, O-freakn’-ho on March 5. State tax return “in transit to next facility March 2.”
Wait a day. State return “in transit to next facility March 2”.
Repeat until March 4. Go to send enquiry:
“You may not email us until it arrives at another facility or until March 3, 2024”.
Looks at calendar: March 4. Hmm.
Repeat multiple days. “March 3rd, 2024”
Looks at calendar: March 16, 2024. “You may not email us until it arrives at another facility or until March 3, 2024”. #headdesk
Dammit Marty, I want the DeLorean!
(Checked with state: they had not received. Priority mail worked, however. Have sent message to tech support asking about the web site. Expect answer February 32, 2024.)
“Federal arrived and accepted”. Yea, efile and text response.
State sent snail mail, Mar 4, via certified. Arrived and signed for Salem, Mar 6. Yea. Signature card returned and in mail box on Mar. 9. Um? Say what? Nope. No green card. Sigh. Now just waiting for deposit of funds for the state hopefully in time for funds for feds to pull funds just before April 15th. Probably will hedge bets and just make sure money is available by pulling from IRA. State is flaky that way.
Murphy was helping with the federal return last year (nah, screwup on my part) and we got a smaller refund than expected. I increased the quarterlies to be safe, then when I finally figured out what I’d done wrong, the result was that the estimated payments for next year are about the same as for the fed overpay. Screwit, we left that money with them–losing 0.0000001% interest? Nah.
OTOH, I seriously overpaid the state, and while they get to keep the quarterlies, we have a fair amount due back. I includef a cover letter for them to remind them that the fed return is part of the package (the “no staples nor paperclips” policy sure helps keep things intact. Not.). They picked it up from the PO box yesterday, so I’ll give them a bit of time to process before checking.
FWIW, priority mail for the state return was $2.60 more expensive than First Class:Ground Advantage. Both allow tracking through the USPS site, so I felt I didn’t need the green card. For both cases, it differentiates between hitting the destination mailbox and somebody actually picking it up.
I’ll look into eFile and the OR-DOR variant. Taxes next year (as this year) should be medium simple.
We don’t pay quarterly, but as we go on hubby’s pension and what is pulled from IRA’s, but no on social security or my pension (all of $121.23/month. Not even enough for one good dinner out per month anymore.) Short of changing to quarterly, no way to reduce the percentage paid to the state. Which hubby doesn’t want to do. Biggest advantage on the state? No state taxes on SS. Real ironic part is our gross income was the highest we’ve ever done at our highest combined salaries. Some big expenses to cover (roof, garage door) last year. Some coming up this year too. Just a taste of what will happen come 2025 hubby hits the official required withdrawal. At least he turns 73 in February. When it is my turn, 2030, we’ll be drawing the minimal draw the year I turn 73 in January, but I don’t actually turn 73 until October; Not Fair! 😒😒😒😒😒😒
Yeah, I hit 73 next year, and I thought I had to start taking the minimum by April 15th. Guess it’s time to re-read the IRS info.
So far, medical expenses (I’m turning into a frequent flyer at the Outpatient Imaging department. Sigh) are covered by the usual suspects, barring the side effects. Depending on what gets done to my knee, I’ll likely have some PT. OTOH, already got that Tshirt, so it might not be as extensive as the last time.
I’m getting The Lecture from $SPOUSE every few days: “If the weather is iffy, don’t do anything risky.” I thought it was safe, but the icy snowberm was really snowy ice. Oops, oh chit!
Looks at IRA statement. If they don’t muck with it (hollow laughter coming from The Author), I’d have until April 1, 2026 for the first year, then by Dec 31, 2026 for the next.
OTOH, I think it’s best to do a SWAG and start getting the distribution for Jan/Feb and adjust if necessary from March onward. The credit union is willing to let us take a monthly payout and adjust as desire. Makes life easier.
Another CU seems to want to shift from CDs to a retirement savings/checking, though I haven’t looked at their policies in detail. It’s nice having three credit unions to pick from locally.
Yep, you’re going to “earn” more money whether you want to or not. I had been taking money out of my IRA (was able to pay immediately for a new truck when the old one got to be too much of a pain), but this year, I turned that off. That helped taxes and we still had sufficient to deal with house stuff last year.
$SPOUSE is in the mandatory withdrawal regime, and with other income, we have enough, for values. OTOH, we can keep taxes lower if I wait til next year.
I’d rolled the HP/Agilent pension into my IRA after I’d been laid off, and before interest rates dropped to nuthin’, they were growing quite nicely. Still should be OK. Maybe.
We just attended an estate planning seminar. One of the questions we asked was about exactly when had to start taking. Rule is “year turn 73”. Technically could just take the bulk amount required for the year I turn 73, in October, but why? Might as well draw it out steady over the 12 months. It isn’t “figure out the bulk for the first year and take out only the amount divided by 12 x number of months actually 73.” Nope. More simple than that. Just like medical deduction for us old folks her in Oregon. Tax year we are 66 get to claim it. Not just the medical deductions for the months we actually were 66.
I refinanced in early 2022 before the rates shot up (F Joe Biden!) and ran into a roadblock: debt to income ratio was ‘too high’. Never mind that I’d been paying the old mortgage for 9 years straight, and the new mortgage payment would be $200 per month lower; no, the ratio was ‘too high’.
They said I could fix it by taking monthly IRA distributions. I took a fresh look at my IRA and realized that if I didn’t start taking distributions, the money would just sit there forever doing me no good at all.
With the current account balance and distribution rate, the IRA should last 35-40 years. I’m mostly reinvesting the money on this side of the tax wall anyway. Total balance of all my accounts is staying pretty much level to slightly up.
If Social Security hasn’t imploded next year, that will provide another boost.
We aren’t refinancing anytime soon (not with a 3.3% rate). Yea, our income to debt looks anemic too, since we rarely include the IRA monthly infusions. Vendors tend to not get past either of our credit ratings. “They really, really, like you!” has been uttered a time or two.
I’m hosting a St. Patrick’s Day party at my house tomorrow. So when I get overwhelmed, I can’t leave early. I’m going to be like those two introverted kittens by the end.
And I may still be salty about the Sixth Sense. “That was the reveal? That was the big surprise? I knew that guy had to be dead in the first few minutes, the rest of the movie didn’t make sense!”
Seeing a disturbing narrative grow up around the TikTok bill.
In that one, the big thing missing? Elon Musk is a US citizen.
I already want the bill to be chopped down to something like “due to overwhelmingly obvious Chinese government meddling, and us not being complete morons- some bits missing- TikTok must sell to operate in the US, because they consistently fail to meet existing US standard of data protection.”
That suddenly there’s a big push for it being censorship, or hooking it to a bunch of other stuff? My spidey sense is tingling… SOMEONE wants to manipulate a lot of stuff, and they’re very carefully not looking at the actual bill.
Always check primary sources.As Foxfier says, go read it for yourself – H.R. 7521 is a fast read. It’s not a complex bill at all.
It specifically names TikTok and Byte Dance, and then in case of name changes, anything owned or controlled by, or with a greater than 20% stock ownership stake held by, a foreign adversary country, defined already elsewhere in Federal law (theres a link to the U.S. code section in the proposed bill text) as the list of: “the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea; the People’s Republic of China; the Russian Federation; and the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
Obviously amendments could change it, but as it stands now the words “election” or “interfere” are not even in the bill at all, just the ownership stuff, so the twit captured in the meme is “other than accurate”.
The reason not to adopt this is found in Section 2d(2)
“Actions by Attorney General
The Attorney General—(A)
shall conduct investigations related to potential violations of subsection (a) or (b), and, if such an investigation results in a determination that a violation has occurred, the Attorney General shall pursue enforcement under paragraph (1); and(B)
may bring an action in an appropriate district court of the United States for appropriate relief, including civil penalties under paragraph (1) or declaratory and injunctive relief.”
And Section 3a and b
“filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.”
“The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction”
Given their wonderful fairness in the case of the J6 prosecutions, I invite anyone who thinks this isn’t problematic, and won’t be applied to Elon Musk on specious grounds, to explain it from inside the cells where J6 political prisoners are being held.
Democrats have already declared that if Trump wins (notwithstanding the Democrats’ efforts to fraud/manipulate/rig Slo Joe’s handlers back into office for another term) and they win the House (which given the gerrymandering they are doing in NY is possible), they will refuse to confirm him, by confirming the electoral vote count, as President. In other words, they are vowing to do the exact same thing that they have declared to be insurrection.
Apparently the constitutional crisis and strife that such action would result in is a feature and not a bug for them.
Nor the BLM and Antefa instigators shown on video smashing in the doors and windows, handing out weapons, wearing armor and trying to push people into rioting and looting. Why hasn’t Confederate Flag Dude been languishing in solitary for 3 years? I think we already know the answer.
They still need to convince a Federal Judge that they’ve met the requirements in the law of ownership or control by someone in one of those named foreign adversary countries plus a POTUS determination documented to Congress to impose penalties under this proposed law if it passes and is signed.
And before someone points out the abuses by the DOJ in that venue, yeah, but that’s a separate problem. They could go after a random company for anything if they can just make stuff up – that is, if the law doesn’t matter, the law doesn’t matter.
The question here is, will the public let this bill get sidetracked from passage by what-ifs and conspiracy theories that, oddly, end up helping the CCP keep their intel collection app running, but which have nothing to do with the text of the bill.
You and I can choose not to use TikTok. I’m okay with it being banned on federal networks and locations.
You could even do a GDPR style data protection thing and require data on US persons to not leave US servers. (I’m sure we can think of problems with this, too, but it would be an alternative to divestiture.)
I’d be more likely to support this either without Part (g)(1)(C) – “a person subject to the direction or control of a foreign person or entity” or differently worded.
As it is, I see nothing that would prevent an Attorney General claiming to a sympathetic Federal Court that, e.g. Elon Musk is totally subject to the direction of Putin.
If they have a Federal judge that will swallow Elon Musk doing things under the control of anyone with a straight face, then Musk will likely die mysteriously while taking a nighttime winter walk in an arctic prison yard, and it does not matter what words this law adds to the voluminous impenetrable pile of words that is the US Code.
Not saying that we’re there, not staying we’re not, but the original Carlson tweet and meme is still a lying liars lie – this bill will not allow the Federal Government to do any such thing.
Don’t you get it? They, the Anointed, have a solemn duty to protect the Unwashed from their own stupidity. No matter how much that looks like authoritarian tyranny, it’s For Their Own Good!
Surprising how the Democrats after all these years still make excellent canon fodder. I believe the Democrats have reached the stage where they have to purge off their own followers because they can no longer steal enough money to pay them off. It is that or the rabble will hang them from the gallows for all their lies.
The one about subnetting cats is something only computer techs from the days of troubleshooting PCs by moving jumper pins and counting motherboard beeps because the display gets no input could appreciate.
I recognize that reference. (mostly because I had to do it at work so often) The fun part in the modern world is being on the phone with HP Server Support in a freezing server room, using needle-nosed pliars to pull *specific* jumpers out and move them around. “Oh, you want the third jumper on DF7. Should be on the bottom-right corner…somewhere. Third from the top or bottom? K, pull it out, power it up, count beeps?
This one will be a twofer. If it’s upheld, they have an easier army; if it’s struck down, expect yelling that if illegals can be stopped from exercising an “inherent right”, so can citizens.
This is just the appetizer. Expect an Obama appointee prior to November to declare that it is illegal to bar illegal aliens from voting in federal elections. That IS the entire point of the open borders policy.
Not really. The Feds can roll in up a big green truck right now and start passing out M-4s and SAWs and antitank missiles and anything else to anyone they want without any requirement for background checks, or BATFE forms, or anyone taking any oath, or any such.
There might be statutory requirements for keeping track of anything the .gov spent money on, but nothing about not issuing it to whomever because of citizenship or criminal background or being an undocumented migrant alien from Ceti Alpha V.
The ruling is bad, but it would not make an undocumented army of aliens any easier.
Not sure I’d count it as bad– being convicted of a non-violent misdemeanor stripping you of rights is bad, banning non-citizens from having guns is bad.
Not big on illegals having guns, but if they’re convicted, why are they here?
And the ones that really shouldn’t have guns have issues a mile long, not just being illegal.
Mea culpa. I did not follow my own guidance here and go read the ruling. I have now.
The ruling is an interesting read. The guy is apparently relatively standup, working jobs in the Chicago area and consistently being available for authorities at those job sites, with no other criminal behavior, and he “…received and used the handgun solely for self-protection and protection of property during a time of documented civil unrest in the Spring of 2020.”
So during the mostly peaceful riots he got a handgun in case he and his got BLM’d.
After reading the ruling I’m pretty sure I’d be fine with this guy as a neighbor, including his handgun.
I am perfectly aware if this were used as a precedent it could implicate not going after very bad dudes who are illegals, but as Foxfier notes, bad dudes have other things to go after – go after the bad dudes for the bad things. In this case it seems like the hooked a non-bad dude, and as the ruling notes, the decision should be made on an individual basis.
Besides, front line rulings like this don’t count as precedent.
In this case I changed my mind. This ruling for this guy is not a bad ruling. Kudos to the judge, who it looks like ruled twice the other way on this guy on this case, for being open to change her mind.
The word “citizen” means nothing to you when you think it will hurt someone you don’t like– not even due process or, y’know, not being executed because you didn’t give a kid theraflu.
Not a lawyer, and didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but my understanding it has to be from higher up to count, so 9th Circus rulings count within the 9th, and Supremes ruling count everywhere.
Now a lawyer can put the ingredients list from a can of tomato paste in as pleading, so they could quote from this ruling elsewhere as a point they wish counted, but, again in my understanding, it’s not controlling unless it’s from further up.
There have been multiple incidents of judges issuing “nationwide injunctions” since 2016. They aren’t supposed to be valid outside that district court for the plaintiffs in that case. In practice, officials will often enforce them. Lots of Immigration and Covid examples.
Can you object to them? Yes. Will it cost you lots of money? Yes.
Oh, absolutely. But Controlling Precedent means something specific.
That Nationwide Injunction thing is right up there with local jurisdictions stealing things under color of law under Civil Forfeiture as Things That Needs To Be Stomped Flat.
A “Consent Decree” is when both sides agree on terms to make something go away, and the court joins the agreement to enforce it. So the issue with that particular consent decree is best laid at the feet of the spineless go-along-to-get-along, can’t-fight-the-arrow-of-history, spineless R scum who agreed to it on behalf of everyone else for two decades to come.
So all they had to do was haul one feckless wuss of a RINO into court and get ‘consent’ to tie the hands of all Republicans nationwide for 20 years. To prohibit them from taking any legal action over federal felonies committed by their enemies.
The Consent Decree was between the RNC and the DNC, and bound on those two parties.
Taking the NPR summary of it because dang is it damning:
ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Eleven months before Election Day, a federal judge has given the Republican National Committee a big win. He has allowed a consent decree to expire that was in place since 1982. That agreement prevented the RNC from carrying out what the party saw as ballot security measures and what critics deemed voter suppression. Rick Hasen of the University of California, Irvine, joins us now. He writes the Election Law Blog. Welcome. RICK HASEN: Good to be with you. SHAPIRO: What happened in the early 1980s that led to this consent decree? HASEN: Well, the Democrats accused the Republican National Committee of engaging in a number of activities which they said was voter suppression in violation of the Voting Rights Act and other civil rights laws. One thing the RNC was accused of was sending armed police officers off duty to polling places to patrol the polling places in minority areas. Rather than going to trial, the RNC agreed to settle the case, and it settled the case in what’s called a consent decree, which means that the settlement between the parties was embodied in a court order. And if the RNC ever violated that order, they could be found in contempt. And so this was a very powerful too that the Democrats have been able to use for the last few decades. SHAPIRO: And over the years, the Democrats convinced judges to extend this consent decree until now. Why not? HASEN: Well, so back in the mid-2000s, the RNC went all the way to the Supreme Court trying to get the consent decree eliminated because nobody wants to be under the threat of contempt. But in 2009, a federal judge said, all right, I’m giving it eight more years. Unless the Democrats come forward with evidence that the Republicans are still engaging in this activity, the consent decree will end as of December 1, 2017.
What Foxfier said: Not just one guy – the entire 1982 R party as embodied in the national RNC was the defendant.
The 1982 RNC wanted to not go to trial, and agreed to a consent decree while not admitting they ever did anything wrong, let alone illegal.
As inferred in Foxfier’s NPR quote, it initially wasn’t supposed to be in force forever, but kept getting extended via D-friendly judges. Over the years there were judicially expanded definitions of contempt-triggering actions and those extensions to end still being in place for 35 years.
Note the Ds want it to stay in place forever because of course the Rs were guilty via the original sin of not being Ds.
The concept they were rolling there of a group eternally-guilty without any need to, you know, ever actually prove guilt, is certainly a concern that remains past the particular consent decrees ending. They still do the same eternally-guilty thing with other Voting Rights Act stuff, subjecting redistricting to external review only in particular states because of stuff that last happened half a century ago, but never subjecting the same exact egregious district boundary-drawing practices to review in places like CA.
They are illegal invaders, not citizens; therefore, the Constitution and Bill Of Rights do not apply to them. The only right they have is to get the F out of our country.
See the link provided by Foxfier above – you might not get to vote as a noncitizen, and you might not be (supposed to be) employable as an illegal, but everyone that’s here gets the right to a jury trial, and the right to freedom of speech, and religion, and their 4th amendment rights to not be illegally searched or subject to warrants based on air, and so on.
I would not want basic rights to be revokable by some sort of bureaucratic uncitizening procedure.
Oh, the open speculation is that this is just a repeat of “if blacks have guns, you raaaaaacists will want gun control!!!!”
A race is not a legal status. Citizenship isn’t based on race, and never should be. Citizenship, and the duties, rights, and privileges that come with it, are based on legal standards that apply to EVERYONE. Otherwise, what purpose does it serve?
“The only thing that really worried me was the luminiferous ether. There is nothing in the galaxy more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of a luminiferous ether binge.”
The right of self defense is inherant in all human beings.
We disarm folks convicted of felony. If the person is not a -convicted- felon, they have the same right to own, possess, and carry a sidearm as anyone else.
Did you not mean “rights” as something other than “government privileges of the favored”? Because that court got it right.
The right to keep and bear arms, like the right to worship as you choose, speak as you choose, etc, is inherently in one’s humanity. Arms are -not- a privilege of citizenship.
-That- is why “endowed by their creator” is so very radical.
I would go so far as to say even felons, sentence completed and not on some early release or parole, resume the same rights as anyone else once out the prison door. As long as they refrain from re-offense, they are again Free.
Because otherwise is to conceded that arms are a privilege of favor and not an inherant right.
You arrest, try, and condemn a man for his actions, not for his pocket contents.
Illegals are deportable, not deplorable. Find them, prosecute, and where guilty of tresspass deport. They remain human, with all the human rights of anyone else.
Yes, I realize that may inconvenience government. So? The sheep and the goats are easily identified and accorded due process.
Thank you for advancing the Left’s agenda of rendering citizenship a meaningless concept.
An illegal immigrant is not either a citizen, or an invited guest. Those statuses should confer the rights and responsibilities of a guest or a citizen. Let them achieve either of those two statuses before we allow armed invasion.
You would make us all serfs, subject to the whims of the tyrant dejure, declaring what license we do or do not have.
even our own criminals have rights, as people, as humans, not as the government construct “citizen”.
idiot. You would throw away liberty for smug privilege? You think some magic dirt or magic blood makes you special?
Wrong, ignorant one.
Those illegals have rights from GOD almighty, not you. Same as everyone else, or it isn’t Liberty.
Yes, we as Americans decide who may come here, or not, for this place is ours. They don’t get the vote just for showing up. We might choose that, but wisely we did not.
How many here have advocated Heinleinian citizenship via service? Note only thing it granted was the vote and serving in government. Nothing else, not residency, not arms, or speech.
Way too many have been left duped to believing that we are just arguing how much privilege goes to lucky accidents of birth, the “broad aristocracy” versus Liberty.
You serve statist thugs. You serve tyrrany. You serve evil. Turn away from that error.
my creed is America, and justice, and Liberty. For All.
Open your eyes. Get some help prying that boot out of your mouth. Not too late to remove your hoodwink.
I doubt it. Instead, you’ll get mad and double down.
He is accurately making the important distinction, the one that governs here.
It is certainly true that the Declaration acknowledges that rights are from God, and thus inalienable by government. The Constitution, however, limits the US Federal (and some state, via 14th amendment) powers over ‘the people’. This is widely meant to imply only those living within the jurisdiction of the US (although not necessarily citizens specifically). How could it be otherwise?
The God-given rights of non-US persons are theirs to defend via (or from) their own governments. Not ours.
Someone in a case like this has broken at least two laws (regarding immigration, and in buying the gun). The appropriate response is deportation. Questions of rights can be taken up in the country they return to.
The God-given rights of non-US persons are theirs to defend via (or from) their own governments. Not ours.
If you believe that to be so, then the TikTok bill should be a thing you strongly support– since it’s a threat to the property rights of non-citizens.
Someone in a case like this has broken at least two laws (regarding immigration, and in buying the gun). The appropriate response is deportation. Questions of rights can be taken up in the country they return to.
You should read the case. Your understanding is inaccurate; there was no claim that he bought the gun, much less did so illegally. In addition, he has not been convicted of any felonies, and was specifically noted as complying with the terms of his release.
Sarah, for someone who keeps saying that they haven’t come for the citizenry because we’re armed, are you failing to see how much extra blood will be involved?
That doesn’t even touch on the basic question here: is someone who crosses the border illegally entitled to the same rights and privileges as a citizen? And if the answer is yes, why bother?
Still waiting for your “worm in hot ashes” attempt to wiggle around the answer you were given hours ago, as to if non-citizens retain basic human rights.
Yes. Yes I am. Are you under the impression that they need permission from our law to own guns, when they don’t seek it to enter or stay in the country? What do you think the courts are going to do Are you under the impression that no criminal has guns?
Will there be blood shed? Yeah, there will, if it comes to that. AND??????
Our veterans are still more disciplined and better at violence. Guns aren’t magical devices whose possession turns people into super-soldiers. If it were Chicago gangster kids would already own the country.
Pfui. Take no counsel of your fears.
The outrage is massive, but the problem is not their having the riht of self defense. Of course they DO. The problem is their being here illegally. Anything else is decoration.
Stop looking for reasons to doom. There are plenty causes for concern, yes. And doom is coming but not for us.
Don’t give the bad guys arguments AGAINST us. If these are not natural rights of EVERYONE, then they can strip them from us too.
Have the courage of your convictions.
“Are you under the impression that they need permission from our law to own guns, when they don’t seek it to enter or stay in the country?””
Nope, not at all? Are you under the impression that we might as well not have any laws at all, since the criminals will ignore them? Because that’s precisely where that logic leads.
As for your other assertions? No way to know for certain until putting it to the proof.
I don’t need excuses to doom; I have eyes, and I keep them open.
Those illegals have rights from GOD almighty, not you. Same as everyone else, or it isn’t Liberty.
Amen.
And chopping away at the human rights on the excuse of the existence of citizen’s rights just makes it all the more tempting for the worst sorts to go after folks’ citizenship.
I read your reply to me upthread and was confused. Here, I may have my answer:
I disagree that repealing someone’s citizenship is a likely avenue of attack. Maybe I’m wrong about that, but I haven’t seen arguments in favor of it (Compare and contrast the description of January 6 protesters with ‘insurrectionist’ language, which would have 14th Amendment implications to holding office, but not citizenship). Even the National Divorce types aren’t there.
In your discussion of the TikTok bill, you mention that Elon Musk is a US citizen. I think it more likely that government would argue in court that he is ‘controlled by’ a hostile power, than that they would revoke his citizenship. That seems to me to be the kind of thing that would result in a 9-0 SCOTUS.
I agree that some rhetoric regarding discussions of citizenship is counter to the moral case for human rights. All have the right of life and thus self defense. Not all have 2nd Amendment protections of said rights.
In your discussion of the TikTok bill, you mention that Elon Musk is a US citizen. I think it more likely that government would argue in court that he is ‘controlled by’ a hostile power, than that they would revoke his citizenship. That seems to me to be the kind of thing that would result in a 9-0 SCOTUS.
Different groups.
A company being controlled by a thing is different than an owner being ‘controlled by’; and Musk they are already attacking his citizenship. Have been for quite some time, it actually comes up first when you search for “Musk citizen of.”
All have the right of life and thus self defense. Not all have 2nd Amendment protections of said rights.
Apparently the only thing you should get for being a citizen is the right to be screwed over by laws and regulations that won’t be enforced to the detriment of trespassers.
Needless to say, Democrats and their media arm constantly call a Trump win to be “the end of democracy” while denouncing people pointing out the things the Democrats have actually done in pursuit of ending the democratic republic that is the USA; things like banana republic prosecutions of political opponents including their chief opponent, holding people for years without charge for non-violent offenses in jails worth of Cuba’s hellholes, etc.
According To Hoyt 
The Reader offers this as evidence that reality writes its own memes. https://twitter.com/NYCMayor/status/1767927779364860256?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1767927779364860256%7Ctwgr%5E783d6105cb817ef6a90a0164690e294a0010859e%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2Fwho-the-f-has-ever-said-that-eric-adams-calls-nyc-port-au-prince-of-america
LikeLike
Amen.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/saraharnold/2024/03/15/biden-give-500-million-to-middle-east-for-oil-drilling-n2636567
LikeLike
It’s memeworthy, but the caffeine hasn’t hit critical mass yet.
Be me: Send state and federal tax returns, Feb 26
Both tax returns reach Portland, OR, Feb 28. Federal arrives in Cincinnatti, O-freakn’-ho on March 5. State tax return “in transit to next facility March 2.”
Wait a day. State return “in transit to next facility March 2”.
Repeat until March 4. Go to send enquiry:
“You may not email us until it arrives at another facility or until March 3, 2024”.
Looks at calendar: March 4. Hmm.
Repeat multiple days. “March 3rd, 2024”
Looks at calendar: March 16, 2024. “You may not email us until it arrives at another facility or until March 3, 2024”. #headdesk
Dammit Marty, I want the DeLorean!
(Checked with state: they had not received. Priority mail worked, however. Have sent message to tech support asking about the web site. Expect answer February 32, 2024.)
LikeLike
Dang.
“Federal arrived and accepted”. Yea, efile and text response.
State sent snail mail, Mar 4, via certified. Arrived and signed for Salem, Mar 6. Yea. Signature card returned and in mail box on Mar. 9. Um? Say what? Nope. No green card. Sigh. Now just waiting for deposit of funds for the state hopefully in time for funds for feds to pull funds just before April 15th. Probably will hedge bets and just make sure money is available by pulling from IRA. State is flaky that way.
LikeLike
Murphy was helping with the federal return last year (nah, screwup on my part) and we got a smaller refund than expected. I increased the quarterlies to be safe, then when I finally figured out what I’d done wrong, the result was that the estimated payments for next year are about the same as for the fed overpay. Screwit, we left that money with them–losing 0.0000001% interest? Nah.
OTOH, I seriously overpaid the state, and while they get to keep the quarterlies, we have a fair amount due back. I includef a cover letter for them to remind them that the fed return is part of the package (the “no staples nor paperclips” policy sure helps keep things intact. Not.). They picked it up from the PO box yesterday, so I’ll give them a bit of time to process before checking.
FWIW, priority mail for the state return was $2.60 more expensive than First Class:Ground Advantage. Both allow tracking through the USPS site, so I felt I didn’t need the green card. For both cases, it differentiates between hitting the destination mailbox and somebody actually picking it up.
I’ll look into eFile and the OR-DOR variant. Taxes next year (as this year) should be medium simple.
LikeLike
We don’t pay quarterly, but as we go on hubby’s pension and what is pulled from IRA’s, but no on social security or my pension (all of $121.23/month. Not even enough for one good dinner out per month anymore.) Short of changing to quarterly, no way to reduce the percentage paid to the state. Which hubby doesn’t want to do. Biggest advantage on the state? No state taxes on SS. Real ironic part is our gross income was the highest we’ve ever done at our highest combined salaries. Some big expenses to cover (roof, garage door) last year. Some coming up this year too. Just a taste of what will happen come 2025 hubby hits the official required withdrawal. At least he turns 73 in February. When it is my turn, 2030, we’ll be drawing the minimal draw the year I turn 73 in January, but I don’t actually turn 73 until October; Not Fair! 😒😒😒😒😒😒
LikeLike
Yeah, I hit 73 next year, and I thought I had to start taking the minimum by April 15th. Guess it’s time to re-read the IRS info.
So far, medical expenses (I’m turning into a frequent flyer at the Outpatient Imaging department. Sigh) are covered by the usual suspects, barring the side effects. Depending on what gets done to my knee, I’ll likely have some PT. OTOH, already got that Tshirt, so it might not be as extensive as the last time.
I’m getting The Lecture from $SPOUSE every few days: “If the weather is iffy, don’t do anything risky.” I thought it was safe, but the icy snowberm was really snowy ice. Oops, oh chit!
LikeLike
Looks at IRA statement. If they don’t muck with it (hollow laughter coming from The Author), I’d have until April 1, 2026 for the first year, then by Dec 31, 2026 for the next.
OTOH, I think it’s best to do a SWAG and start getting the distribution for Jan/Feb and adjust if necessary from March onward. The credit union is willing to let us take a monthly payout and adjust as desire. Makes life easier.
Another CU seems to want to shift from CDs to a retirement savings/checking, though I haven’t looked at their policies in detail. It’s nice having three credit unions to pick from locally.
LikeLike
The first year draw isn’t a whole lot more than what we’d take anyway. Problem is we’ve been earning more than we draw. Now what?
LikeLike
Yep, you’re going to “earn” more money whether you want to or not. I had been taking money out of my IRA (was able to pay immediately for a new truck when the old one got to be too much of a pain), but this year, I turned that off. That helped taxes and we still had sufficient to deal with house stuff last year.
$SPOUSE is in the mandatory withdrawal regime, and with other income, we have enough, for values. OTOH, we can keep taxes lower if I wait til next year.
I’d rolled the HP/Agilent pension into my IRA after I’d been laid off, and before interest rates dropped to nuthin’, they were growing quite nicely. Still should be OK. Maybe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We just attended an estate planning seminar. One of the questions we asked was about exactly when had to start taking. Rule is “year turn 73”. Technically could just take the bulk amount required for the year I turn 73, in October, but why? Might as well draw it out steady over the 12 months. It isn’t “figure out the bulk for the first year and take out only the amount divided by 12 x number of months actually 73.” Nope. More simple than that. Just like medical deduction for us old folks her in Oregon. Tax year we are 66 get to claim it. Not just the medical deductions for the months we actually were 66.
Definitely do your own research.
LikeLike
I refinanced in early 2022 before the rates shot up (F Joe Biden!) and ran into a roadblock: debt to income ratio was ‘too high’. Never mind that I’d been paying the old mortgage for 9 years straight, and the new mortgage payment would be $200 per month lower; no, the ratio was ‘too high’.
They said I could fix it by taking monthly IRA distributions. I took a fresh look at my IRA and realized that if I didn’t start taking distributions, the money would just sit there forever doing me no good at all.
With the current account balance and distribution rate, the IRA should last 35-40 years. I’m mostly reinvesting the money on this side of the tax wall anyway. Total balance of all my accounts is staying pretty much level to slightly up.
If Social Security hasn’t imploded next year, that will provide another boost.
LikeLike
We aren’t refinancing anytime soon (not with a 3.3% rate). Yea, our income to debt looks anemic too, since we rarely include the IRA monthly infusions. Vendors tend to not get past either of our credit ratings. “They really, really, like you!” has been uttered a time or two.
LikeLike
I see I’m not the only one up early. Good morning all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s always fun when you’re describing a break down in software version control by rattling off your drafts folder names…
LikeLike
I’m hosting a St. Patrick’s Day party at my house tomorrow. So when I get overwhelmed, I can’t leave early. I’m going to be like those two introverted kittens by the end.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And I just discovered that Microsoft OneDrive has built on version control…
LikeLike
I’m with the kittens.
And I may still be salty about the Sixth Sense. “That was the reveal? That was the big surprise? I knew that guy had to be dead in the first few minutes, the rest of the movie didn’t make sense!”
LikeLiked by 2 people
I thought the kid was dead, so yeah, I might have opposite plot radar.
LikeLike
:pushes glass up nose:
Seeing a disturbing narrative grow up around the TikTok bill.
In that one, the big thing missing? Elon Musk is a US citizen.
I already want the bill to be chopped down to something like “due to overwhelmingly obvious Chinese government meddling, and us not being complete morons- some bits missing- TikTok must sell to operate in the US, because they consistently fail to meet existing US standard of data protection.”
That suddenly there’s a big push for it being censorship, or hooking it to a bunch of other stuff? My spidey sense is tingling… SOMEONE wants to manipulate a lot of stuff, and they’re very carefully not looking at the actual bill.
It’s 13 pages.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr7521
It should be easy to point at specific issues, but this meme is the first such attempt… and it carefully lies.
LikeLike
Always check primary sources.As Foxfier says, go read it for yourself – H.R. 7521 is a fast read. It’s not a complex bill at all.
It specifically names TikTok and Byte Dance, and then in case of name changes, anything owned or controlled by, or with a greater than 20% stock ownership stake held by, a foreign adversary country, defined already elsewhere in Federal law (theres a link to the U.S. code section in the proposed bill text) as the list of: “the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea; the People’s Republic of China; the Russian Federation; and the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
Obviously amendments could change it, but as it stands now the words “election” or “interfere” are not even in the bill at all, just the ownership stuff, so the twit captured in the meme is “other than accurate”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The reason not to adopt this is found in Section 2d(2)
“Actions by Attorney General
The Attorney General—(A)
shall conduct investigations related to potential violations of subsection (a) or (b), and, if such an investigation results in a determination that a violation has occurred, the Attorney General shall pursue enforcement under paragraph (1); and(B)
may bring an action in an appropriate district court of the United States for appropriate relief, including civil penalties under paragraph (1) or declaratory and injunctive relief.”
And Section 3a and b
“filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.”
“The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction”
Given their wonderful fairness in the case of the J6 prosecutions, I invite anyone who thinks this isn’t problematic, and won’t be applied to Elon Musk on specious grounds, to explain it from inside the cells where J6 political prisoners are being held.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I believe Trump promised to pardon all the J6 political prisoners. Those they actually proved broke stuff probably won’t be included.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLiked by 2 people
Democrats have already declared that if Trump wins (notwithstanding the Democrats’ efforts to fraud/manipulate/rig Slo Joe’s handlers back into office for another term) and they win the House (which given the gerrymandering they are doing in NY is possible), they will refuse to confirm him, by confirming the electoral vote count, as President. In other words, they are vowing to do the exact same thing that they have declared to be insurrection.
Apparently the constitutional crisis and strife that such action would result in is a feature and not a bug for them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And yet, the ones who are feds will mysteriously continue not to be charged.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nor the BLM and Antefa instigators shown on video smashing in the doors and windows, handing out weapons, wearing armor and trying to push people into rioting and looting. Why hasn’t Confederate Flag Dude been languishing in solitary for 3 years? I think we already know the answer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They still need to convince a Federal Judge that they’ve met the requirements in the law of ownership or control by someone in one of those named foreign adversary countries plus a POTUS determination documented to Congress to impose penalties under this proposed law if it passes and is signed.
And before someone points out the abuses by the DOJ in that venue, yeah, but that’s a separate problem. They could go after a random company for anything if they can just make stuff up – that is, if the law doesn’t matter, the law doesn’t matter.
The question here is, will the public let this bill get sidetracked from passage by what-ifs and conspiracy theories that, oddly, end up helping the CCP keep their intel collection app running, but which have nothing to do with the text of the bill.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Which is why they specified the DC District Courts and DC Appeals Court as the mandatory venue. Improves the odds astronomically.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You and I can choose not to use TikTok. I’m okay with it being banned on federal networks and locations.
You could even do a GDPR style data protection thing and require data on US persons to not leave US servers. (I’m sure we can think of problems with this, too, but it would be an alternative to divestiture.)
I’d be more likely to support this either without Part (g)(1)(C) – “a person subject to the direction or control of a foreign person or entity” or differently worded.
As it is, I see nothing that would prevent an Attorney General claiming to a sympathetic Federal Court that, e.g. Elon Musk is totally subject to the direction of Putin.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If they have a Federal judge that will swallow Elon Musk doing things under the control of anyone with a straight face, then Musk will likely die mysteriously while taking a nighttime winter walk in an arctic prison yard, and it does not matter what words this law adds to the voluminous impenetrable pile of words that is the US Code.
Not saying that we’re there, not staying we’re not, but the original Carlson tweet and meme is still a lying liars lie – this bill will not allow the Federal Government to do any such thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t you get it? They, the Anointed, have a solemn duty to protect the Unwashed from their own stupidity. No matter how much that looks like authoritarian tyranny, it’s For Their Own Good!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Isabel Paterson’s “the humanitarian with the guillotine” appears yet again.
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
The scary thing is, that works better for the folks lying about what the bill says than about the folks actually making a law about TikTok.
LikeLike
Watch the lefties’ heads explode when Musk buys TikTok . . .
LikeLike
They started the last one, too. Seems they haven’t changed a bit, or learned a thing.
LikeLike
If Democrats COULD learn from bitter experience, they wouldn’t be socialists — or Democrats.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Surprising how the Democrats after all these years still make excellent canon fodder. I believe the Democrats have reached the stage where they have to purge off their own followers because they can no longer steal enough money to pay them off. It is that or the rabble will hang them from the gallows for all their lies.
LikeLike
They are, for instance, going to claim we’re the aggressors.
LikeLike
C4C
LikeLike
The one about subnetting cats is something only computer techs from the days of troubleshooting PCs by moving jumper pins and counting motherboard beeps because the display gets no input could appreciate.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I recognize that reference. (mostly because I had to do it at work so often) The fun part in the modern world is being on the phone with HP Server Support in a freezing server room, using needle-nosed pliars to pull *specific* jumpers out and move them around. “Oh, you want the third jumper on DF7. Should be on the bottom-right corner…somewhere. Third from the top or bottom? K, pull it out, power it up, count beeps?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I recognize it from being married to Dan.
LikeLike
The introverts one. Is kind of me at work, most days.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The first one just went up on my corkboard…
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLike
LikeLike
Obama judge has just ruled that illegal immigrant have the same rights to firearms as citizens.
https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2024/03/16/prohibiting-guns-for-illegal-immigrants-ruled-unconstitutional-n1224214
This one will be a twofer. If it’s upheld, they have an easier army; if it’s struck down, expect yelling that if illegals can be stopped from exercising an “inherent right”, so can citizens.
LikeLike
Illegal immigration should be considered a felony. Then denial of firearms isn’t a problem.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sure. And I’m sure I would trust our current government with enforcement and prosecution equally. /sarc
LikeLike
This is just the appetizer. Expect an Obama appointee prior to November to declare that it is illegal to bar illegal aliens from voting in federal elections. That IS the entire point of the open borders policy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s the sort of case I would expect the Supreme Court to promptly grab, and issue an immediate stay pending appeal.
LikeLike
via Insty open thread:
LikeLike
Truth! :-P
LikeLike
”…easier army”
Not really. The Feds can roll in up a big green truck right now and start passing out M-4s and SAWs and antitank missiles and anything else to anyone they want without any requirement for background checks, or BATFE forms, or anyone taking any oath, or any such.
There might be statutory requirements for keeping track of anything the .gov spent money on, but nothing about not issuing it to whomever because of citizenship or criminal background or being an undocumented migrant alien from Ceti Alpha V.
The ruling is bad, but it would not make an undocumented army of aliens any easier.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not sure I’d count it as bad– being convicted of a non-violent misdemeanor stripping you of rights is bad, banning non-citizens from having guns is bad.
Not big on illegals having guns, but if they’re convicted, why are they here?
And the ones that really shouldn’t have guns have issues a mile long, not just being illegal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mea culpa. I did not follow my own guidance here and go read the ruling. I have now.
The ruling is an interesting read. The guy is apparently relatively standup, working jobs in the Chicago area and consistently being available for authorities at those job sites, with no other criminal behavior, and he “…received and used the handgun solely for self-protection and protection of property during a time of documented civil unrest in the Spring of 2020.”
So during the mostly peaceful riots he got a handgun in case he and his got BLM’d.
After reading the ruling I’m pretty sure I’d be fine with this guy as a neighbor, including his handgun.
I am perfectly aware if this were used as a precedent it could implicate not going after very bad dudes who are illegals, but as Foxfier notes, bad dudes have other things to go after – go after the bad dudes for the bad things. In this case it seems like the hooked a non-bad dude, and as the ruling notes, the decision should be made on an individual basis.
Besides, front line rulings like this don’t count as precedent.
In this case I changed my mind. This ruling for this guy is not a bad ruling. Kudos to the judge, who it looks like ruled twice the other way on this guy on this case, for being open to change her mind.
Link to ruling: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.389849/gov.uscourts.ilnd.389849.101.0.pdf
LikeLike
He has taken no oath of allegiance, swearing without mental or moral reservation to uphold the creed set forth in the Constitution.
This argument only applies if the legal term “citizen” means nothing… exactly as the Left believes.
I await the “worm in hot ashes” squirming to dodge this fact.
LikeLike
Why bother?
The word “citizen” means nothing to you when you think it will hurt someone you don’t like– not even due process or, y’know, not being executed because you didn’t give a kid theraflu.
But hey, let me google that for you!
https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/constitutional-rights-noncitizens/
Go scream at them about how they’re proggy statists or something.
LikeLike
I didn’t know they don’t even count for precident!
Thank you. :D
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not a lawyer, and didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but my understanding it has to be from higher up to count, so 9th Circus rulings count within the 9th, and Supremes ruling count everywhere.
Now a lawyer can put the ingredients list from a can of tomato paste in as pleading, so they could quote from this ruling elsewhere as a point they wish counted, but, again in my understanding, it’s not controlling unless it’s from further up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There have been multiple incidents of judges issuing “nationwide injunctions” since 2016. They aren’t supposed to be valid outside that district court for the plaintiffs in that case. In practice, officials will often enforce them. Lots of Immigration and Covid examples.
Can you object to them? Yes. Will it cost you lots of money? Yes.
Lawfare works.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, absolutely. But Controlling Precedent means something specific.
That Nationwide Injunction thing is right up there with local jurisdictions stealing things under color of law under Civil Forfeiture as Things That Needs To Be Stomped Flat.
LikeLike
Or ‘consent decrees’ like the one that prohibited Republicans from objecting to election fraud for 20 years.
LikeLike
Again, not a lawyer, blah blah blah, but:
A “Consent Decree” is when both sides agree on terms to make something go away, and the court joins the agreement to enforce it. So the issue with that particular consent decree is best laid at the feet of the spineless go-along-to-get-along, can’t-fight-the-arrow-of-history, spineless R scum who agreed to it on behalf of everyone else for two decades to come.
LikeLike
So all they had to do was haul one feckless wuss of a RINO into court and get ‘consent’ to tie the hands of all Republicans nationwide for 20 years. To prohibit them from taking any legal action over federal felonies committed by their enemies.
That ain’t right.
LikeLike
That’s not what happened.
The Consent Decree was between the RNC and the DNC, and bound on those two parties.
Taking the NPR summary of it because dang is it damning:
LikeLike
What Foxfier said: Not just one guy – the entire 1982 R party as embodied in the national RNC was the defendant.
The 1982 RNC wanted to not go to trial, and agreed to a consent decree while not admitting they ever did anything wrong, let alone illegal.
As inferred in Foxfier’s NPR quote, it initially wasn’t supposed to be in force forever, but kept getting extended via D-friendly judges. Over the years there were judicially expanded definitions of contempt-triggering actions and those extensions to end still being in place for 35 years.
Note the Ds want it to stay in place forever because of course the Rs were guilty via the original sin of not being Ds.
The concept they were rolling there of a group eternally-guilty without any need to, you know, ever actually prove guilt, is certainly a concern that remains past the particular consent decrees ending. They still do the same eternally-guilty thing with other Voting Rights Act stuff, subjecting redistricting to external review only in particular states because of stuff that last happened half a century ago, but never subjecting the same exact egregious district boundary-drawing practices to review in places like CA.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Note I still think signing the consent decree was spineless. But things go to settlement all the time.
I’d bet that given how long the thing ran and how expanded the thing got in the end, they’d not hand such a hammer to the other side again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They can…. at the cost of being obvious. Less obvious is just letting them pick them up one at a time and then allow them to have them until needed.
I know there’s a bedrock assumption here that they’re all stupid incompetents. That might be costly.
LikeLike
They are illegal invaders, not citizens; therefore, the Constitution and Bill Of Rights do not apply to them. The only right they have is to get the F out of our country.
LikeLike
THIS.
LikeLike
See the link provided by Foxfier above – you might not get to vote as a noncitizen, and you might not be (supposed to be) employable as an illegal, but everyone that’s here gets the right to a jury trial, and the right to freedom of speech, and religion, and their 4th amendment rights to not be illegally searched or subject to warrants based on air, and so on.
I would not want basic rights to be revokable by some sort of bureaucratic uncitizening procedure.
LikeLike
“Obama judge has just ruled that illegal immigrant have the same rights to firearms as citizens.”
Given the Left’s opinion on citizens having guns, isn’t that “no right at all”?
LikeLike
Well, Party troops always get a pass.
LikeLike
You underestimate their hypocrisy. They are perfectly capable of pretending that illegal aliens have a right to own guns, and citizens do not.
They’d just have a hard time convincing anybody outside their cult.
LikeLike
Oh, the open speculation is that this is just a repeat of “if blacks have guns, you raaaaaacists will want gun control!!!!”
A race is not a legal status. Citizenship isn’t based on race, and never should be. Citizenship, and the duties, rights, and privileges that come with it, are based on legal standards that apply to EVERYONE. Otherwise, what purpose does it serve?
LikeLike
My dog is in this picture…..
LikeLiked by 2 people
I was at a family party last night and I lived that introvert meme.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Found this one after memedumping on the boss here, but it’s too good not to share.
“We were somewhere outside Alderan, near the edge of the system, when the drugs took hold.” — Hunter S. Solo, Fear and Loathing in Mos Eisley
https://imgur.com/a/USbY9eg
LikeLiked by 1 person
😁
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another quote from the same work:
“The only thing that really worried me was the luminiferous ether. There is nothing in the galaxy more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of a luminiferous ether binge.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Don’t stop! This is mynok space!”
LikeLike
The one about worrying about yourself after writing something really dark was me about halfway through ‘Texas in the Med’.
LikeLike
Battle of Athens Ten.
LikeLike
-human rights-
The right of self defense is inherant in all human beings.
We disarm folks convicted of felony. If the person is not a -convicted- felon, they have the same right to own, possess, and carry a sidearm as anyone else.
Did you not mean “rights” as something other than “government privileges of the favored”? Because that court got it right.
The right to keep and bear arms, like the right to worship as you choose, speak as you choose, etc, is inherently in one’s humanity. Arms are -not- a privilege of citizenship.
-That- is why “endowed by their creator” is so very radical.
I would go so far as to say even felons, sentence completed and not on some early release or parole, resume the same rights as anyone else once out the prison door. As long as they refrain from re-offense, they are again Free.
Because otherwise is to conceded that arms are a privilege of favor and not an inherant right.
You arrest, try, and condemn a man for his actions, not for his pocket contents.
Illegals are deportable, not deplorable. Find them, prosecute, and where guilty of tresspass deport. They remain human, with all the human rights of anyone else.
Yes, I realize that may inconvenience government. So? The sheep and the goats are easily identified and accorded due process.
LikeLike
Thank you for advancing the Left’s agenda of rendering citizenship a meaningless concept.
An illegal immigrant is not either a citizen, or an invited guest. Those statuses should confer the rights and responsibilities of a guest or a citizen. Let them achieve either of those two statuses before we allow armed invasion.
LikeLike
Bullshit. Horse squeeze.
You would make us all serfs, subject to the whims of the tyrant dejure, declaring what license we do or do not have.
even our own criminals have rights, as people, as humans, not as the government construct “citizen”.
idiot. You would throw away liberty for smug privilege? You think some magic dirt or magic blood makes you special?
Wrong, ignorant one.
Those illegals have rights from GOD almighty, not you. Same as everyone else, or it isn’t Liberty.
Yes, we as Americans decide who may come here, or not, for this place is ours. They don’t get the vote just for showing up. We might choose that, but wisely we did not.
How many here have advocated Heinleinian citizenship via service? Note only thing it granted was the vote and serving in government. Nothing else, not residency, not arms, or speech.
Way too many have been left duped to believing that we are just arguing how much privilege goes to lucky accidents of birth, the “broad aristocracy” versus Liberty.
You serve statist thugs. You serve tyrrany. You serve evil. Turn away from that error.
my creed is America, and justice, and Liberty. For All.
Open your eyes. Get some help prying that boot out of your mouth. Not too late to remove your hoodwink.
I doubt it. Instead, you’ll get mad and double down.
Best of luck. Liberty wins.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NO.
He is accurately making the important distinction, the one that governs here.
It is certainly true that the Declaration acknowledges that rights are from God, and thus inalienable by government. The Constitution, however, limits the US Federal (and some state, via 14th amendment) powers over ‘the people’. This is widely meant to imply only those living within the jurisdiction of the US (although not necessarily citizens specifically). How could it be otherwise?
The God-given rights of non-US persons are theirs to defend via (or from) their own governments. Not ours.
Someone in a case like this has broken at least two laws (regarding immigration, and in buying the gun). The appropriate response is deportation. Questions of rights can be taken up in the country they return to.
LikeLike
The God-given rights of non-US persons are theirs to defend via (or from) their own governments. Not ours.
If you believe that to be so, then the TikTok bill should be a thing you strongly support– since it’s a threat to the property rights of non-citizens.
Someone in a case like this has broken at least two laws (regarding immigration, and in buying the gun). The appropriate response is deportation. Questions of rights can be taken up in the country they return to.
You should read the case. Your understanding is inaccurate; there was no claim that he bought the gun, much less did so illegally. In addition, he has not been convicted of any felonies, and was specifically noted as complying with the terms of his release.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.389849/gov.uscourts.ilnd.389849.101.0.pdf
LikeLike
at any rate yes, we should be deporting all illegals. That has nothing to do with owning guns or not.
LikeLike
Sarah, for someone who keeps saying that they haven’t come for the citizenry because we’re armed, are you failing to see how much extra blood will be involved?
That doesn’t even touch on the basic question here: is someone who crosses the border illegally entitled to the same rights and privileges as a citizen? And if the answer is yes, why bother?
LikeLike
Still waiting for your “worm in hot ashes” attempt to wiggle around the answer you were given hours ago, as to if non-citizens retain basic human rights.
https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/constitutional-rights-noncitizens/
LikeLike
Yes. Yes I am. Are you under the impression that they need permission from our law to own guns, when they don’t seek it to enter or stay in the country? What do you think the courts are going to do Are you under the impression that no criminal has guns?
Will there be blood shed? Yeah, there will, if it comes to that. AND??????
Our veterans are still more disciplined and better at violence. Guns aren’t magical devices whose possession turns people into super-soldiers. If it were Chicago gangster kids would already own the country.
Pfui. Take no counsel of your fears.
The outrage is massive, but the problem is not their having the riht of self defense. Of course they DO. The problem is their being here illegally. Anything else is decoration.
Stop looking for reasons to doom. There are plenty causes for concern, yes. And doom is coming but not for us.
Don’t give the bad guys arguments AGAINST us. If these are not natural rights of EVERYONE, then they can strip them from us too.
Have the courage of your convictions.
LikeLike
“Are you under the impression that they need permission from our law to own guns, when they don’t seek it to enter or stay in the country?””
Nope, not at all? Are you under the impression that we might as well not have any laws at all, since the criminals will ignore them? Because that’s precisely where that logic leads.
As for your other assertions? No way to know for certain until putting it to the proof.
I don’t need excuses to doom; I have eyes, and I keep them open.
LikeLike
Like the joke about UN “troops”: They won’t be coming to take our guns. They’ll be coming to leave us theirs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Precisely.
LikeLike
Those illegals have rights from GOD almighty, not you. Same as everyone else, or it isn’t Liberty.
Amen.
And chopping away at the human rights on the excuse of the existence of citizen’s rights just makes it all the more tempting for the worst sorts to go after folks’ citizenship.
LikeLiked by 1 person
>go after folks’ citizenship
I read your reply to me upthread and was confused. Here, I may have my answer:
I disagree that repealing someone’s citizenship is a likely avenue of attack. Maybe I’m wrong about that, but I haven’t seen arguments in favor of it (Compare and contrast the description of January 6 protesters with ‘insurrectionist’ language, which would have 14th Amendment implications to holding office, but not citizenship). Even the National Divorce types aren’t there.
In your discussion of the TikTok bill, you mention that Elon Musk is a US citizen. I think it more likely that government would argue in court that he is ‘controlled by’ a hostile power, than that they would revoke his citizenship. That seems to me to be the kind of thing that would result in a 9-0 SCOTUS.
I agree that some rhetoric regarding discussions of citizenship is counter to the moral case for human rights. All have the right of life and thus self defense. Not all have 2nd Amendment protections of said rights.
LikeLike
In your discussion of the TikTok bill, you mention that Elon Musk is a US citizen. I think it more likely that government would argue in court that he is ‘controlled by’ a hostile power, than that they would revoke his citizenship. That seems to me to be the kind of thing that would result in a 9-0 SCOTUS.
Different groups.
A company being controlled by a thing is different than an owner being ‘controlled by’; and Musk they are already attacking his citizenship. Have been for quite some time, it actually comes up first when you search for “Musk citizen of.”
All have the right of life and thus self defense. Not all have 2nd Amendment protections of said rights.
You’re welcome to make the case.
LikeLike
Yeah, that was a typical red herring.
Apparently the only thing you should get for being a citizen is the right to be screwed over by laws and regulations that won’t be enforced to the detriment of trespassers.
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2024/03/15/tyson-foods-fires-over-1000-americans-seeks-to-fill-spots-in-new-facilities-with-asylum-seekers-report-1445607/
Close the plant in Iowa where the laws might be enforced and send them to New York where they won’t be.
Pfui.
LikeLike
Sums things up perfectly:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GI4MuN9bkAAwKAW?format=jpg
Needless to say, Democrats and their media arm constantly call a Trump win to be “the end of democracy” while denouncing people pointing out the things the Democrats have actually done in pursuit of ending the democratic republic that is the USA; things like banana republic prosecutions of political opponents including their chief opponent, holding people for years without charge for non-violent offenses in jails worth of Cuba’s hellholes, etc.
LikeLike
Would also be fitting for the Brain Coffee post the other day::
LikeLike
Putin has won a 5th term as <sarc> President Of Russia </sarc> with over 90% of the vote, after all of his opponents either died or were imprisoned.
The Democrats think that was a jolly good example of Muh Democracy! and they want to have an election just like it.
LikeLike
The cow that failed to produce milk lacked ation.
LikeLike
Ballistic Carp, incoming! :-P
LikeLike