Friday, March 30, 2007

Too Many (Unqualified) Cooks in the Giuliani Kitchen?

On Friday evening Judy Guiliani will have her political coming out party on ABC’s "20/20" during a taped interview with correspondent Barbara Walters where she and hubby Rudy said that she could very well attend cabinet meetings and advise on policy in a Giuliani administration. Rudy currently leads the pack of 2008 GOP presidential hopefuls. Judy is a registered nurse. She is not qualified to attend such important senior-level gatherings, and certainly not equipped to deal with the serious subject matter that’s discussed in them. One unqualified Giuliani in the White House would be enough. Excuse me for being blunt here, but I don’t want Judy sitting in on cabinet meetings anymore than I want Rudy sitting in on my next rectal exam.

To be sure, most everyone consults their spouse at some point on sensitive work-related matters. But there’s a difference between a private, personal conversation between a husband and wife, and a "two-for-one" proclamation to the American public that the spouse could be injecting her opinions into the mix along with members of the president’s cabinet. Those of us with business partners can appreciate that the partner’s spouse is a likely confidant and advisor to him or her. But I don’t think that anyone would want that spouse attending our board meetings and shaping policy. That’s taking the spousal consultative role a bit too far. And there’s no place for it in Washington either.

Elected officials are just that: elected. Americans don’t vote for the spouses. They vote for who they believe to be the most experienced, capable candidates, and that’s who they expect to make policy. Not only is involving one’s spouse in presidential politics setting a dangerous precedent, such souped up involvement, as we saw with Hillary Clinton back in 1992 and ’93, can serve to undermine the president and the party’s overall agenda, weakening its position against the opposition. It can be a major distraction, and provide much needed fodder for the other party to go on the offensive.

We need to get back to the good old days in Washington where the president is the one who wears the pants in the White House. George Bush gave unprecedented power to VP Dick Cheney and the result was an unjust war and a raping of the Constitution. Bill Clinton gave unprecedented power to Hillary and it turned what should’ve been his presidential honeymoon into an embarrassing and exhausting battlefield with Republicans. There's so many reasons why we don't want Rudy Giuliani in the White House. Telling us now that his wife would be "his best advisor" is just the icing on the cake.


Anonymous said...

Your blog today makes many extremely valid points with which I couldn't agree more! There seems to be a pervasive attitude in the two most recent administrations that presidential power can be informally shared with whomever the President wants. Bad idea, no matter how it's implemented, for the very reasons you cite! The Founding Fathers obaviously wanted a strong executive, which is why they created the Executive Branch headed by a single person. If they had wanted governance by multiple people, or even by a committee, they would have so stipulated. The idea of someone who isn't elected and isn't a politician or a cabinet head sitting in on meetings strikes me as a disaster waiting to happen!

Anonymous said...

Did you know that during the 12 years Republicans were in power, there was actually a federal agency that tracked pork barrel spending? It is called Congressional Research Service....and surprisingly, it has stopped tracking earmarks since the Democrats took over. Nice bit of reform there on the part of the liberals...I guess they didn't want any meddling while they loaded up with defense appropriation with one pet project after another. Either that or there become too many to count...although how much more in West Virginian can be named after Robert Byrd?

So how much is Congressional pork costing you and me? We're not just talking a few million bucks for a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. Citizens Against Government Waste says it was $29 billion last year. According to the Congressional Research Service, which used to track such was $67 billion. That'll buy a lot of fancy clocks on bus stops in North Carolina. And 2007 is already proving to be a banner year for pork barrel spending on Capitol Hill.

Since the Democrats can't cut funding for the war in Iraq, they've decided to load it up with pet spending projects. Among the $20 billion in pork in the $124 defense appropriation, you'll find items such as these. $74 million for the peanut industry, $124 for the shrimp industry...and remember that e. Coli outbreak awhile ago that affected spinach growers? There's $25 million in there for them. No word if Nancy Pelosi has slipped in any cash for tuna companies in San Francisco.

If you thought spending couldn't get any worse than it was under the Republicans, get ready.

Anonymous said...

Neal -- If you think the Repubicans are innocent I have a bridge in Alaska I'd like to sell you. Why don't you and the Republicans and I and the Democrats mature and hold both parties accountable to us for good governing.

Anonymous said...

Is Rudy crazy? Why would he even consider such a thing and why is he stupid enough to announce his musings. Does he want his doctor's wife contributing to the discussion of the course of action for his health? It's idiotic. And, from what I've seen of Judy I can't imagine enduring her for four years. She's already had several interviews describing him sexually as like the Energizer Bunny. Who cares? Who wants to hear it? Could we please have a little class in the White House? What is the reason he's pushing her into prominence? Is it "hush money" or does she "wear the pants?"

Anonymous said...

anonymous 3:05 pm,
As a libertarian, I would love to see democrats and republicans try to hold both parties accountable to us for good governing. I'm amazed that with all the promises to reform the 'culture of corruption', one of the first things Nancy Pelosi tried to do was put William Jefferson (D-LA) on the Intelligence Committee. If you don't know anything about him, he was the Democrat who was caught on video by the FBI accepting a $100,000 bribe. $90,000 was found in his freezer. If you look back to the Katrina timeframe, he was the one who took over a dozen National Guard members off the task of saving people, to bring him to his house to save a refrigerator. I'll give you one guess on what might have been inside that refrigerator.

I'd also like to get your thoughts on Nancy Pelosi excluding the Samoa Tuna company, which happens to be based in San Francisco, from the minimum wage hike. Seems to me, like her constituents might be getting special favors. I'd call this a conflict of interest.

And finally, how about the continued re-election of Robert Byrd (D-WV) who is a former KKK clansman and recently used the 'N' word on television; or Ted Kennedy (D-MA) who let Mary Jo Kopechne die in 4 feet of water, while he covered his tracks to protect his political future. Kennedy also regularly votes against energy alternatives such as wind farms because he doesn't want the view from the Kennedy Compound cluttered with windmills.

I'd bring up Ostroy's favorite hypocrite - Al Gore, but we all know he's a scam artist who doesn't practice what he preaches. Not only does he invest hundreds of thousands of dollars into the oil industry, but he also receives an annual income from the Zinc Mine next to one of his TN houses. This zinc mine is one of the nation's biggest polluters.

I know there are plenty of examples of corrupt Republicans, but the media is always highlighted them, so I don't bring them up. Anyone who claims to be serious about reform in our Government, and supports either the Democrats or Republicans is a first class LIAR.

Anonymous said...

Cite your sources 3:46PM or is this just more libertarian/GOP smoke?

Anonymous said...

Well, Mr.Libertarian, I'm sure if the country knew anybody at all among Libertarians in the leadership role in our Country, someone could/would be found who has been dishonest and corrupt. But you see, there are no Libertarians whoem anybody knows. That "party" has no leaders of notice, nor do I ever read anything the party has published. So until your "party" can become a real participant in our poltical life, why don't you grow up and pick a party and work to imporve it?

Anonymous said...

Yeah Mr. Libertarian,
Give up your beliefs and ideals and settle for status quo.

Anonymous said...

Better still,Mr. L. Stop pointing your finger at the corruption among the Dems (because the newspapers pick on the Republicans) and start making something of your party. To most of the people in our country you're a strange bunch. We'd like to hear what you have to offer besides criticism of the Democrats.

Anonymous said...

Are Libertarians liberal or conservative?

Libertarians are neither. Unlike liberals or conservatives, Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. For example, Libertarians advocate freedom in economic matters, so we're in favor of lowering taxes, slashing bureaucratic regulation of business, and charitable -- rather than government -- welfare. But Libertarians are also socially tolerant. We won't demand laws or restrictions on other people who we may not agree because of personal actions or lifestyles.

Think of us as a group of people with a "live and let live" mentality and a balanced checkbook.

In a sense, Libertarians “borrow” from both sides to come up with a logical and consistent whole -- but without the exceptions and broken promises of Republican and Democratic politicians. That's why we call ourselves the Party of Principle.

How large is the Libertarian Party?

In terms of political activity (i.e. number of candidates, access to the ballot, and elected office holders), the Libertarian Party is the third-largest political party in America. We’re active in all 50 states and have more than 200,000 registered voters.

What kind of offices do Libertarians run for and hold?

Around the nation there are Libertarian mayors, county executives, county council members and even a Libertarian sheriff! Libertarians also serve on school boards and in hundreds of local offices. In 2006 alone, over 13.4 million votes were cast for Libertarian candidates around the nation.

While we are most successful at the local level for now, we run candidates at all levels of government, even President of the United States.

Our elected Libertarians are hard at work saving you money and protecting your civil liberties. In fact, Libertarians saved Americans over $2.2 billion in 2004 alone.

What kind of people join the Libertarian Party?

People like you. People who used to be Republicans, Democrats, and independents – from all walks of life. They joined us because they realize that we’re the only political party working for their best interests.

Those who join us realize that, unlike the two major parties, we place the interests of our nation ABOVE the interests of our political party. While the Republican and Democratic parties exist to maintain their own power, we exist to grasp power for the benefit of you and millions of other Americans across our nation.

Anonymous said...

Libertarianism sounds scary to me: slash taxes, no control over business (corporations are already without proper contraints); and no control over anybody/anything else which might affect the common good. "Charitable not governmental welfare" -- let the rich feel superior by throwing the poor "a bone", while the safety nets that assure we don't become a "third world country" are demolished sounds dangerous and cruel. The "socially tolerant" point of view is also frightening. Anybody any age can carry a gun, and the governmnet just better stay out of domestic abuse, child abuse, illegal drug use and sale and anything else that isn't a "government concern" which I presume are most laws in general which now protect society as a whole. Sounds like anarchy to me. That is not in our best interest.

Anonymous said...

You are completely wrong.

Charitable welfare already exceeds governmental welfare. Democrats are interested in always increasing governmental welfare because they want control of the masses. This is dirty politics and vote buying. You obviously enjoy the status quo and our current Culture of Corruption on the Republican AND Democrat sides of the isle.

America was built and became the most powerful country in the world based on limited government. The current state of Democrat and Republican politics is destroying the great United States.

Social Tolerance scares you? You don't like "live and let live" ? I guess you enjoy the Government telling you and me what we can and mostly what we cannot do. Libertarians don't restrict anyone with unnecessary laws, UNLESS YOUR ACTIONS DIRECTLY HARM ANOTHER PERSON.

"Anybody can carry a gun" ? sure, as long as the gun carrier doesn't harm anyone. What's wrong with this?

"domestic abuse, child abuse" requires the harming of someone else. Libertarians are against these actions, as clearly stated in the Libertarian post. Abuse does not in any way fall into the "live and let live" category.

Illegal drug use? There would not be a "war on drugs". Libertarians believe in education. The "war on drugs" is a creation of the corrupt Democrat and Republican parties. It creates a blackmarket that only enriches law breakers. With the proper education, people can learn about the real issues of excessive drug abuse and can avoid it. Libertarians favor teaching people "how to fish", not making them dependent on the government giving the fish.

Keeping the government OUT OF OUR LIVES is in the best interest of Americans. Democrats and Republicans want the government CONTROLLING our lives.

Anonymous said...

How"live and let live" to say without hesitation: "you are wrong." You won't get far with your concept of not interferring in other's lives if you can't see the merit of the other's point of view.

If what you say is true about chartiable donations now, that could all change when those givers stop getting a tax deduction. Then who will "feed the poor.", or help them get jobs, or give them shelter? Not the government under your plan. As for vote buying, I thought it was the poor who were cheated out of their votes by the Republican Party in Florida as well as the rest of the country. Even now, the poor are not protected from corporate, personal interests. If corporations did no harm they would not now be importing illegals to work for very little In fact, some have been accused in MS of slave labor. We need more government protection for all our citizens, not less.

The government doesn't intervere with my life. I certainly don't begrude the taxes that keep our country running. I do want the government to interfere in the lives of businesses that cheat the tax law; cheat our citizens by hiring illegal invaders; who relocate overseas; who won't allow workers to demand human rights while in their employ. I want the government to regulate the speed limits, the vacinations required (to prevemnt widespread infection); the qulaity and safety of the food we eat; the safety of our water; the insurance companies; -- everything that protects my health, safety and well-being. And, I want there to he uniformitay among all the states. I do not wish to need a passport to travel from one "soverign" state to another.

Your gun argument is fine until the gun carrier does kill someone. Most sane people prefer foresight and prevention rather than waiting for the disaster to happen.

Your argument that L. doesn't include domestic violence has little value. Since such violence is ridiculously widespread now under a government that, as you suggest - doesn't mind interferring in our lives with rules and regulations seems impotent, how on earth could the Libertarians succeed?

And, we all know education is the answer. Where are you Libertarians going to get the money to fulfull your massive education plans to "teach them how to fish" and probbly "just say no?" And how are you going to provide the jobs that might be more appealling to a poor kid than the "big bucks" in drug dealing? As a result of the huge tax cuts we can't even teach our children how to add and subtract. You want fewer taxes?

Silly me -- I live in NY and I even like the noise ordinance that keeps my neighbor from playing his trumpet at one a.m. Or is that one of the things you'd call"causing harm>" You're so unclear about that.

Anonymous said...

Republicans and Democrats try to keep their monopoly on Corrupt Politics:

Like "Patriot Act," the title "Fair Elections Now Act" sounds great. Like the Patriot Act, the devil is in the details. Here's Senator Durbin's description of the act:

U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Congressman John Tierney (D-MA) today unveiled two bipartisan bills - one dealing with Senate races; the other focused on House contests - to restore public confidence in the Congressional elections process. Both bills would allow qualified candidates to receive campaign financing from a public fund instead of from lobbyists and other special interests.

In general, the bills create "voluntary" public financing of House and Senate races. It is voluntary (until they make it mandatory, at least) for the campaigns to engage in the program, but there is no provision to make it voluntary for the taxpayers. In other words, expect your hard earned money to be used to support candidates you dislike.

There's more. Let's take a peak at a portion of the House bill (H.R. 1614)(emphasis added):

'(a) Major Party Candidates and Certain Independent Candidates- The requirement of this section is met if, during the clean money qualifying period, a major party candidate (or an independent candidate who meets the minimum vote percentage required for a major party candidate under section 501(9)) receives 1,500 qualifying contributions.

'(b) Other Candidates- The requirement of this section is met if, during the clean money qualifying period, a candidate who is not described in subsection (a) receives a number of qualifying contributions that is at least 150 percent of the number of qualifying contributions that a candidate described in subsection (a) in the same election is required to receive under subsection (a).

You read that right. Libertarian Party candidates would have to have one-and-a-half times the amound of qualifying contributions. Just to rule out the possibility of a typo, let's look at the Senate version (S.936):



'(i) IN GENERAL- In the case of a minor party candidate or independent candidate described clause (ii), the base amount is an amount equal to the product of--

'(I) a fraction the numerator of which is the highest percentage of the vote received by the candidate or a candidate of the same political party as such candidate in the election described in clause (ii) and the denominator of which is 25 percent; and

'(II) the amount that would (but for this paragraph) be the base amount for the candidate under paragraph (1).

'(ii) CANDIDATE DESCRIBED- A candidate is described in this clause if, in the most recent general election involving the office of Senator, President, or Governor in the State in which the candidate is seeking office--

'(I) such candidate, or any candidate of the same political party as such candidate, received 5 percent or more of the total number of votes cast for any such office; and

'(II) such candidate and all candidates of the same political party as such candidate received less than 25 percent of the total number of votes cast for each such office.

'(B) EXCEPTION- Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any candidate if such candidate receives a number of qualifying contributions which is greater than 150 percent of the number of qualifying contributions such candidate is required to receive in order to meet the requirements of section 505(a).

The bills are filled with other really bad ideas, too. For example, they intend to force media outlets to provide political advertising at a loss.

The system would also provide for a media market adjustment to address variations among states. Participants would receive vouchers for purchasing broadcast airtime and would receive a 20% discount beneath the lowest unit cost on all advertising purchased near the end of the primary and general campaigns.

Regardless of the intentions, these bills are pure electoral evil. To begin, they force people to financially support political campaigns they dislike.

If you think McCain/Feingold is bad policy with disastrous results, just wait until you see the results of "Fair Elections Now." Because incumbents use constituent services, local offices and franking privileges, it will make them even harder to beat.

If enacted, the right of free political speech will only apply to the two major parties.

Both bills clearly target "minor party" campaigns, with the apparent goal of stifling political opposition.

A quick Google search found all sorts of progressive sites favoring the bill, with no sites opposing the bills. Republican sites seem conspicously silent on the issue.

Roll over McCain/Feingold, the meaner bills is movin' in.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at March 30, 2007 12:37 PM

Anonymous said...

How did Libertarians save taxpayers money in 2004? 200,000 registered voters? Wah-ha-ha!!! Third largest party. Duh!

So how many elections do Libertarians lose?

As long as there are the uninformed who believe in evangelical TV preachers and go to mega churches, there will be too many sheep who can't live without rules and government controls. As long as there are backwoods meth labs and rural pipelines for drugs, there will be a need for regulation. Libertarian utopia sounds great in theory but doesn't prove out too well in reality. Kinda like Howard Hughes' Spruce Goose airplane.

Anonymous said...

Every group activity has rules. The rules are to establish order, justice, fair-play, a goal to achieve and the promise of success in the endeavor. We adore our group sports where the team is what counts and all team members work together under the rules of the game for victory.

Rules at first were needed for survival and then for civilization. Rules are not bad. The more advanced the civilization the greater number of people are involved n making the rules. Tribes need a Chief. However, even with our advanced democracy's rules, we are heing destroyed by greed and corruption. Think what it would be like without the number of rules we have in place. There would be riots and anarchy. We are not advanced enough to be trusted with total self-determination. Even the "sheep" mentioned in another blog, who attend church and "follow blindly," take it upon themselves to murder abortion doctors or commit other hate crimes. All that under the "law and order" we have established. We need rules/laws and they need to be obeyed. When each of us is intelligent, educated, trustworthy, reliable, compassionate and concerened with the good of all, can we succesfully have fewer restraints. I don't want to live in a society in which I'm not protected by the government from those who would do me and others harm. I want laws, I want the laws to apply to every citizen in the USA and I want them to be enforced. If there's a law you don't like, work to change it in the legally acceptable way.

Anonymous said...

Democrats Already Breaking Campaign Promises

(Washington, D.C.) - According to a recent survey[1], 59 percent of Americans describe themselves as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal." A total of 44 percent of the survey respondents were willing to describe themselves as "libertarian" if the term is defined as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal." Many of these swing voters rejected the Republican Party in 2006 congressional races and may well reject the Democrats in 2008.

Last November, Americans decided "enough is enough" and threw many Republicans out of office. A summary of post-election analyses indicates that the main issues Americans voted on were President Bush's foreign policy, political corruption and out-of-control congressional spending. The view of most Americans on these significant issues is generally consistent with the views of the Libertarian Party.

As columnist Ryan Sager and others accurately predicted[2], many Americans living in western and mountain states were going to vote for Democrats running on more-libertarian-than-liberal messages. In order to win their elections, many Democrats promised a new, more libertarian-looking face for their party. Promises were made to keep tax increases and gun control bills off the table. Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised "the most ethical Congress ever."

"Democrats Fail to Impress in First 100 Days" is the title of a Pew Research Center survey[3] released last Thursday. The pertinent finding from this survey is that while independents say (52 percent to 30 percent) they are happy that the Democrats won the majority, nearly half of them (47 percent to 30 percent) are already saying "they disapprove of the policies and proposals of the Democratic leaders in Congress."

The Pew poll also found that only a slight majority of respondents (40 percent to 30 percent) felt that Democrats were keeping their campaign promises. As swing voters become more aware of broken Democratic pledges, expect the American public to spank Democrats in 2008 like they spanked Republicans in 2006.

"Let's take a look at the issues swing voters found important and the promises Democrats made," stated Libertarian National Committee Executive Director Shane Cory. "The Democrats squandered foreign policy, political corruption and congressional spending opportunities in one single legislative act by attaching billions of dollars of pork barrel spending to the emergency supplemental defense appropriations bill. They also favor a tax increase and have introduced a major gun control bill. Democrats are already reverting to the same old liberal agenda that Americans grew tired of in the nineties."

One of the key political goals announced at the latest Libertarian National Committee meeting was to recruit three times the amount of Libertarian Party candidates in 2008 as the party ran in 2006. With the libertarian western and mountain states up for grabs and a sizeable quantity of Americans with generally libertarian values casting the deciding votes, millions of voters may break free of the two-party system and cast their 2008 votes for Libertarian Party candidates in good conscience.­




Anonymous said...

There you go with an attack on the Democrats, yet again.



Anonymous said...


We know he's a hypocrite, Canada know's he's a hypocrite, ...when will Ostroy learn he's a hypocrite?!?! Al Gore, GO AWAY, you never won the election anyway!


MONTREAL (CUP) - Concordia president Claude Lajeunesse was booed as he took the stage to give Al Gore an honorary doctorate from the university on March 22.
The brainchild of Concordia Student Union president Khaleed Juma, the doctorate was presented while the crowd, present to listen to speeches from Gore and David Suzuki, filed out the exits after the question and answer period with Gore was cancelled.
The talk took place in the cadre of Less Talk, More Action: A Youth Action Summit on Climate Change, organized by Youth Action Montreal members and Concordia University students Peter Schiefke and Mohamed Shuriye.
Gore and Suzuki's message was clear: The world is in imminent danger if we continue our current habits and don't change towards a more eco-friendly society.
The former U.S. vice-president's speech was effectively his Academy Award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth with updated statistics, and presented by an angrier, fist-shaking Gore.
His presentation was halted at least twice as opponents to his agenda began to shout out.
They called him a liar and a villain, and screamed, "What about your swimming pools?" in regards to recent allegations that the monthly electricity bill of Gore's estate rivalled a year's bill for the average American home.
This led Gore to joke, "I don't even know if you guys are left- or right-wing".
Suzuki also made a 45-minute speech on the topic du jour. The speech was punctuated by numerous bouts of applause from a rather enthusiastic audience.
He espoused that the media should play a more central role in the way it informs the public, saying, "Over half of all Nobel Prize winners are telling us we could have as little as 10 years to avoid a catastrophe and this is pronounced by our media as 'not newsworthy'.

Anonymous said...

So the canucks didn't like the yank. So what, aye?

Anonymous said...

Gore's not a yank - his ancestors probably owned slaves. Has he apologized for his slavery appeasement? One word: reparations

The democrats are all for reparations, too. Maybe he should set an example since he clearly cannot set an example of how to conserve energy.

Anonymous said...

I apologize about this different subject, but here are yet some more Americans recently killed by Illegal Aliens. It doesn't matter what country they are from or whether they entered the U.S. illegally or overstayed their visas. Mass Illegal Immigration is the most serious threat to the future of the United States. I just felt that these stories must be shared with every American citizen, along with the sad story about Mr. Ostroy's late wife.

1. Robert Clark - Film Director:

2. Rebecca Griego - University of Washington Student:
(note the Sanctuary City policy: City law forbids Seattle police from inquiring about immigration status, unless the officer has a reasonable suspicion that person is here illegally.

3. Tessa Tranchant and Allison Kunhardt - Virginia Beach High School Students:

This happens every single day and it seems to be getting worse. For what it's worth, one study states that more Americans are killed by illegal aliens than the total number of American troops killed in Iraq.

Most Wanted Lists

Los Angeles -

New York -

Wahington D.C. -,a,1244,q,543077,mpdcNav_GID,1533,mpdcNav,%7C31538%7C.asp

Chicago -

Anonymous said...

8:52 PM,
I hear you on your concerns. I think you are correct, but you are barking up the wrong tree in this blog. Democrats here are hard core stalinists. They want open borders and illegal aliens because that means more votes for the All Might Democratic Party.

This blog is not concerned with what is best for America. Take a look at Ostroy's mission statement for this blog, "Our mission is to help Democrats regain the White House and Congress."

Anyway, prepare to have your character attacked. When the libs on this blog read your post, you're going to be called "koolaid drinker, neocon, republican, nazi, hitler, ..."

Good Luck!

The Ostroy Report said...

"Our mission is to help Democrats regain the White House and Congress."

Our mission, yes, and it's also what's best for America.

Anonymous said...

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Commits US Felony in Syria!

The Logan Act is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994.

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

Anonymous said...

don't be silly - Democrats are not expected to follow the law.

Anonymous said...

I posted the comment about Illegal Immigration at 8:52 PM. Conservative or Liberal, it doesn't matter. The Kennedy Immigration Bill must not succeed. What we really need is the courage to enforce EXISTING immigration laws and to deport illegal aliens. Gangs such as the Mara Salvatrucha, tax fraud, Medicare fraud, welfare fraud, identity theft, overcrowded emergency rooms, DWI, etc. are all problems exacerbated by illegal aliens. I will argue that Robert Clark and his son Ariel Clark (along with many others) would still be alive today if it weren't for these ridiculous Sanctuary City provisions in place. The man who killed Mr. Clark, Hector Manuel Velazquez-Nava, pleaded guilty in 2005 in Los Angeles to a prostitution-related charge and was sentenced to two years' probation. He SHOULD have been turned over to ICE for deportation back then.
I was lucky, I only lost my car to an illegal alien driver. It was totaled in a hit and run but a good samaritan followed and stopped the guy. Who must be killed next before we deal with this problem firmly and honestly?

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:52,
wow, 3 people killed by illegal aliens. I guess you've proven your point that illegal aliens are responsible for all of the country's murders. Because Lord knows we could never come up with a list of anyone killed by American citizens.

Anonymous said...

We really need to secure our borders first and then worry about how to handle the illegal aliens inside our borders second. Unfortunately, neither party wants to touch this issue.

democrats need to votes
republicans need to cheap labor

I'm typically on the libertarian side, but they are useless too on this issue, since they are generally for open borders.

I agree that party affiliation shouldn't matter, but it seems like Americans generally turn the other cheek when their party is at fault for something; yet attack when the other party is at fault. We'll be attacked ruthlessly on this blog because we are discussing something against the stalinist liberal agenda.

We need people who care about the country and will act for our country's benefit. People who claim "Our mission is to help [insert-party-here] regain the White House and Congress.", are useless to the real good of the country; they only see things through their party affiliation.

We need REAL CHANGE in this country. I believe that voting for third parties is a possible path to get the attention of the sleeping giants (DNC & RNC). Got any other ideas? This problem is only going to get worse if we keep re-electing democrats and republicans.

Anonymous said...

1:48 PM,

Yes, I said Illegal Aliens are responsible for ALL of the country's murders. Are you serious? I guess the point went WAY over your head. My point is that there are millions of foreign nationals who don't have the right to be physically present in the United States. Without permission to enter or remain here, these people should be removed. What benefit does American citizenship have if anyone in the world can enter and have access to the same rights and privileges? Is this what you want from the new generation of "immigrants?"

Anonymous said...

byNancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House has the right if not duty to visit foreign countries. She's third in line for the Presidency.

As for illegal immigrants, everybody is forgetting that Catholic churches are giving protection in their churches to illegal immigrants, thus breaking the law. Not only that the Catholic Church wants as many Catholic immigrants as they can get to occupy their pews, and vote for candidates to make abortion illegal once again and to help enact the rest of the agenda of the Catholic and Evangelical churches. If these immigrants weren't Catholics they would not be so welcomed by the Church, Ted Kennedy and the other Catholic legislators.

But none of this matters. The immigrants have broken the law and they should not be rewarded by getting away with it. We should return to being a country of laws which apply to all equally.

Anonymous said...

2:12 PM,

I totally agree with you about securing the borders first because deportations are meaningless if they simply come right back. The only solution I can think of is to simply have the courage to enforce our current laws while fortifying the border. Prosecuting the employers of illegal aliens is a mandatory part of the solution as well. Minor USC children of illegal aliens would have to accompany their parents wherever they go. USC children could then petition for their parents to legally enter the U.S. when they turn 18.
Yes, G.W. is a disgrace. Why he panders to the activist groups that totally disrespect U.S. law is beyond me. A third major party is definitely needed but I just can't see that happening.

Anonymous said...

Remember the "separation of church and state" Mantra? We are discussing the political parties and illegal immigration - not the Catholic church. I'm sure you have your own personal issues with the Catholic church, but you're way off in left field talking about nothing. If you want to stay in the game, please pay attention.

Nancy Pelosi does not have the right, nor the duty, to commit felonies. The Logan Act is a federal law that is more than 200 years old, and amended during the previous administration. Nancy Pelosi has an obligation to the citizens of the United States to follow the law. Isn't that what is best for America? Otherwise, if Nancy Pelosi can break the law, and William Jefferson can break the law, and Sandy Berger can break the law, illegal aliens inherently break the law, hollywood and athletes can break the law...why should we follow the law?

Anonymous said...

11. 09 You're right about SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE AND I WISH THE CHURCH COULD REMEMBER THAT> I have my issues with the Catholic Church and any other group and individuals who do no obey our laws. Of course that includes the long list of Republicans who have lied, cheated and robbed the American people.

Anonymous said...

What is your stance on Sandy Berger stealing and destroying classified papers he stole from the National Archives?

What is your stance on Nancy Pelosi, this week, violating the Logan Act by meeting with the head of a state sponsor of terrorism without executive or state department approval?

What is your stance on William Jefferson (D-LA) accepting bribes from undercover FBI agents (on camera) ?

Anonymous said...

7:26 What part of "any other group and individuals" don't you understand??????

That INCLUDES everybody.

Get help.

Anonymous said...

Does this also include the NEA? The teacher's union runs the DNC.


Anonymous said...

12:57 I see why you hate the NEA. They let you down; you can't read. Enforcing the law does not abolish people or organizations.

3:53 was right --Get help. Phonics will probably help you.

Anonymous said...

You must be in a union or unemployed. Ever try critical thinking? Where did I ever say that enforcing the law does or does not abolish anything??

If you are referring to my complete and independent sentence, "ABOLISH THE NEA!!", then you are wrong.

Do you support the NEA that protects teachers who molest children? If not, do you believe the DNC should accept NEA contributions?

Anonymous said...

The slaughter continues...

Anonymous said...

And continues... More Americans have been killed by illegal aliens than in the Iraq war.

Anonymous said...

Add some illegal alien rapists to the mix as well...