<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.5" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Nancy Hearts Mahmoud</title>
	<link>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/04/11/nancy-hearts-mahmoud/</link>
	<description>When I wake up I read the Bible and the newspaper... because I want to know what both sides are up to.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:49:47 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: endorendil</title>
		<link>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/04/11/nancy-hearts-mahmoud/#comment-53472</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:01:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/04/11/nancy-hearts-mahmoud/#comment-53472</guid>
					<description>Indeed, state legislators have no federal function. 

The law's been on the books for over two centuries, we've seen civil war, Vietnam and Richard Nixon, but this is the first time that the law is applicable? Go adjust your tinfoil hat.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Indeed, state legislators have no federal function. </p>
<p>The law&#8217;s been on the books for over two centuries, we&#8217;ve seen civil war, Vietnam and Richard Nixon, but this is the first time that the law is applicable? Go adjust your tinfoil hat.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: crushliberalism</title>
		<link>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/04/11/nancy-hearts-mahmoud/#comment-53457</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:57:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/04/11/nancy-hearts-mahmoud/#comment-53457</guid>
					<description>&lt;i&gt;Pelosi is not a private citizen, that was the point.&lt;/i&gt;

OK, thanks for the clairification: Pelosi isn't a private citizen, but a state legislator is.  Wow...it's an honor to meet you, Sen. Kerry.

&lt;i&gt;And to your other comment I have two words: Jane Fonda. Was she prosecuted under the Logan Act? No, because … well, you tell me. If the Logan Act had a snowball’s chance in hell of being used to prosecute someone, why not put her behind bars? Please!&lt;/i&gt;

Weak-kneed politicians didn't want to incur the wrath of Peter Fonda and Americans who happened to like Jane Fonda (minus that whole North Korean thing, which the MSM buried deeper than Teddy buried Mary Jo Kopechne).  Plus, you seem to equate failure to prosecute under the law with the invalidity of the law.

Like I said, English isn't quite working for you today.  Tonmorrow's not looking too bright for you, either.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Pelosi is not a private citizen, that was the point.</i></p>
<p>OK, thanks for the clairification: Pelosi isn&#8217;t a private citizen, but a state legislator is.  Wow&#8230;it&#8217;s an honor to meet you, Sen. Kerry.</p>
<p><i>And to your other comment I have two words: Jane Fonda. Was she prosecuted under the Logan Act? No, because … well, you tell me. If the Logan Act had a snowball’s chance in hell of being used to prosecute someone, why not put her behind bars? Please!</i></p>
<p>Weak-kneed politicians didn&#8217;t want to incur the wrath of Peter Fonda and Americans who happened to like Jane Fonda (minus that whole North Korean thing, which the MSM buried deeper than Teddy buried Mary Jo Kopechne).  Plus, you seem to equate failure to prosecute under the law with the invalidity of the law.</p>
<p>Like I said, English isn&#8217;t quite working for you today.  Tonmorrow&#8217;s not looking too bright for you, either.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: endorendil</title>
		<link>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/04/11/nancy-hearts-mahmoud/#comment-53450</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:17:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/04/11/nancy-hearts-mahmoud/#comment-53450</guid>
					<description>Pelosi is not a private citizen, that was the point. 

And to your other comment I have two words: Jane Fonda. Was she prosecuted under the Logan Act? No, because ... well, you tell me. If the Logan Act had a snowball's chance in hell of being used to prosecute someone, why not put her behind bars? Please!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pelosi is not a private citizen, that was the point. </p>
<p>And to your other comment I have two words: Jane Fonda. Was she prosecuted under the Logan Act? No, because &#8230; well, you tell me. If the Logan Act had a snowball&#8217;s chance in hell of being used to prosecute someone, why not put her behind bars? Please!
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: crushliberalism</title>
		<link>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/04/11/nancy-hearts-mahmoud/#comment-53384</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:49:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/04/11/nancy-hearts-mahmoud/#comment-53384</guid>
					<description>Nice job changing your argument from "private citizen", since you lost that round.

&lt;i&gt;Any federal legislator has a role in determining the relations between the US and foreign governments, hence is exempted from this (has authority).&lt;/i&gt;

Does English normally kick your ass that badly?  Being elected to represent a district (Congressman) or a state (Senator) equates to having authority of the United States government?  Just to make sure I'm understanding you clearly here (assuming you don't try morphing your words again), Pe-loco isn't a private citizen, right?

Dude, you're crazier than a syphilitic badger.

&lt;i&gt;Incidentally, no one is ever been convicted under the Act, presumably because it is unconstitutionally vague and broad. No one has ever been prosecuted under it. There’s been one indictment, which happened a little over 200 years ago.&lt;/i&gt;

Seldom in the history of this country have our elected officials been more concerned with the destruction of an administration at the expense of national security interests...until now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice job changing your argument from &#8220;private citizen&#8221;, since you lost that round.</p>
<p><i>Any federal legislator has a role in determining the relations between the US and foreign governments, hence is exempted from this (has authority).</i></p>
<p>Does English normally kick your ass that badly?  Being elected to represent a district (Congressman) or a state (Senator) equates to having authority of the United States government?  Just to make sure I&#8217;m understanding you clearly here (assuming you don&#8217;t try morphing your words again), Pe-loco isn&#8217;t a private citizen, right?</p>
<p>Dude, you&#8217;re crazier than a syphilitic badger.</p>
<p><i>Incidentally, no one is ever been convicted under the Act, presumably because it is unconstitutionally vague and broad. No one has ever been prosecuted under it. There’s been one indictment, which happened a little over 200 years ago.</i></p>
<p>Seldom in the history of this country have our elected officials been more concerned with the destruction of an administration at the expense of national security interests&#8230;until now.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: endorendil</title>
		<link>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/04/11/nancy-hearts-mahmoud/#comment-53364</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 08:30:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/04/11/nancy-hearts-mahmoud/#comment-53364</guid>
					<description>"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."

Any federal legislator has a role in determining the relations between the US and foreign governments, hence is exempted from this (has authority). State legislators have indeed no constitutional protected rights to determine federal foreign policy. As I said, you can use the Logan Act to sue many international businessmen, or state delegations trying to improve trade or tourist relations with foreign countries, but you can't use it against Congress or White House.

Incidentally, no one is ever been convicted under the Act, presumably because it is unconstitutionally vague and broad. No one has ever been prosecuted under it. There's been one indictment, which happened a little over 200 years ago.

So, I stand by my statement that there are no restrictions on the ability of the members of Congress to discuss with foreign leaders. Your frantic waving of the Logan Act just creates a cool breeze, it's not an argument.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;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.&#8221;</p>
<p>Any federal legislator has a role in determining the relations between the US and foreign governments, hence is exempted from this (has authority). State legislators have indeed no constitutional protected rights to determine federal foreign policy. As I said, you can use the Logan Act to sue many international businessmen, or state delegations trying to improve trade or tourist relations with foreign countries, but you can&#8217;t use it against Congress or White House.</p>
<p>Incidentally, no one is ever been convicted under the Act, presumably because it is unconstitutionally vague and broad. No one has ever been prosecuted under it. There&#8217;s been one indictment, which happened a little over 200 years ago.</p>
<p>So, I stand by my statement that there are no restrictions on the ability of the members of Congress to discuss with foreign leaders. Your frantic waving of the Logan Act just creates a cool breeze, it&#8217;s not an argument.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: crushliberalism</title>
		<link>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/04/11/nancy-hearts-mahmoud/#comment-53165</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Apr 2007 04:12:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/04/11/nancy-hearts-mahmoud/#comment-53165</guid>
					<description>&lt;i&gt;the Logan Act only prohibits private citizens from engaging in discussions with foreign governments &lt;/i&gt;

Uh-oh...someone's gotten into Grandpa's Dumbass Juice again.

The &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act" rel="nofollow"&gt;Logan Act&lt;/a&gt;:

"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. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.
...
Passed under the administration of President John Adams, during tension between the U.S. and France, it was informally named for Dr. George Logan of Pennsylvania, &lt;b&gt;a state legislator&lt;/b&gt; (and later US Senator) and pacifist who in 1798 engaged in semi-negotiations with France during the Quasi-War."

So would a state legislator who was the basis of said law be a "private citizen" but a federal legislator would not be?  Nice try, though.  Aw, who am I kidding?  It wasn't even a nice try.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>the Logan Act only prohibits private citizens from engaging in discussions with foreign governments </i></p>
<p>Uh-oh&#8230;someone&#8217;s gotten into Grandpa&#8217;s Dumbass Juice again.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act" rel="nofollow">Logan Act</a>:</p>
<p>&#8220;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. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.<br />
&#8230;<br />
Passed under the administration of President John Adams, during tension between the U.S. and France, it was informally named for Dr. George Logan of Pennsylvania, <b>a state legislator</b> (and later US Senator) and pacifist who in 1798 engaged in semi-negotiations with France during the Quasi-War.&#8221;</p>
<p>So would a state legislator who was the basis of said law be a &#8220;private citizen&#8221; but a federal legislator would not be?  Nice try, though.  Aw, who am I kidding?  It wasn&#8217;t even a nice try.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: endorendil</title>
		<link>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/04/11/nancy-hearts-mahmoud/#comment-53131</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:19:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/04/11/nancy-hearts-mahmoud/#comment-53131</guid>
					<description>CL, the Logan Act only prohibits private citizens from engaging in discussions with foreign governments to affect relations with the US. Pelosi is an elected official, not a private citizen, so the law has no relevance whatsoever.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>CL, the Logan Act only prohibits private citizens from engaging in discussions with foreign governments to affect relations with the US. Pelosi is an elected official, not a private citizen, so the law has no relevance whatsoever.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: endorendil</title>
		<link>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/04/11/nancy-hearts-mahmoud/#comment-53130</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:12:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/04/11/nancy-hearts-mahmoud/#comment-53130</guid>
					<description>OS, declaring a war is a simple act and defined properly in the constitution. Congress has done it several times, there is no ambiguity about how it is supposed to be done. It results in the country being at war. This did not happen. Congress authorized a police action, it did not declare war.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OS, declaring a war is a simple act and defined properly in the constitution. Congress has done it several times, there is no ambiguity about how it is supposed to be done. It results in the country being at war. This did not happen. Congress authorized a police action, it did not declare war.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Old Soldier</title>
		<link>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/04/11/nancy-hearts-mahmoud/#comment-53014</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 23:37:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/04/11/nancy-hearts-mahmoud/#comment-53014</guid>
					<description>&lt;i&gt;”The Republican Congress had several years to declare a state of war but decided that this was not warranted. Were they wrong?”&lt;/i&gt;

Does the Authorization for the Use of Force Act ring a bell?  It may not have employed the words “declaration of war,” but our young American military volunteers are not decked out in tuxedoes and evening gowns attending soirees!  They are bleeding and dying: a direct result of conducting warfare as authorized by the Republican AND Democratic congress!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>”The Republican Congress had several years to declare a state of war but decided that this was not warranted. Were they wrong?”</i></p>
<p>Does the Authorization for the Use of Force Act ring a bell?  It may not have employed the words “declaration of war,” but our young American military volunteers are not decked out in tuxedoes and evening gowns attending soirees!  They are bleeding and dying: a direct result of conducting warfare as authorized by the Republican AND Democratic congress!
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: crushliberalism</title>
		<link>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/04/11/nancy-hearts-mahmoud/#comment-52955</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:31:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/04/11/nancy-hearts-mahmoud/#comment-52955</guid>
					<description>&lt;i&gt;Members of Congress are not restricted in their ability to discuss with foreign leaders...&lt;/i&gt;

Um, Logan Act ring a bell?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Members of Congress are not restricted in their ability to discuss with foreign leaders&#8230;</i></p>
<p>Um, Logan Act ring a bell?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
