Hi,

I'm an Asian graduate student currently living and studying in the US, here on a US Visa. The ActBlue page that was linked to lists some eligibility requirements, including that the contributor be a United States citizen or permanent resident alien. Does this mean that I am not eligible to contribute? I don't understand why such a contribution would fall under campaign finance law, since I don't wish to contribute to anyone's campaign.

-- CarloL

Apparently not, unless you have been "admitted for permanent residence". ActBlue is a Federal PAC.

Lawful Sources of Contributions

All donations to federal candidates or political committees must be either from individuals or committees registered with the FEC. Direct contributions from corporations or labor unions are prohibited, although these entities may sponsor PACs that raise money from individuals. Contributions in cash of more than $100 to PACs are illegal, as are contributions from individuals who are deemed "foreign nationals," i.e., noncitizens who have not been admitted permanently to the United States. However, foreign citizens who are admitted for permanent residence may contribute, even though they cannot vote in an election.

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/1007/ijde/baran.htm

I have generally been lenient on Nancy Pelosi, but absolutely she is one person who could prevent this travesty.

She still has a challenge from someone with quite a bit of name recognition, Cindy Sheehan.

I totally agree with the strategy of hammering Hoyer, who I have always thought to be a total scum-bag, but ultimately, Pelosi has the gavel.

Click on my name for an interesting article, one where a journalist actually admits he got it wrong.

I wrote all my Congresscritters as well as Obama:

Dear Senator Murray,

In the next week Congress will vote on a bill that could turn out to be one of the biggest mistakes our country will ever make. The false compromise on telecom amnesty would be an endorsement of the principle that the president can order private citizens to break the law. It would also make a mockery of the right to privacy which we as American citizens should all enjoy.

Senator Murray, this so-called compromise would let the telecoms completely off the hook for the crimes they committed for years. That is anti-rule of law, anti-civil liberties and anti-American. It would make a laughingstock of everything we believe in and fight for. These kinds of "compromises" are undermining and destroying the Democratic Party and our democracy itself.

I am urging you today to make a stand against this false compromise. Please vote NO on telecom amnesty!

----------------

Unfortunately it's not really possible for me to donate $$$ as I live outside the States. Wire transfers are still way too expensive :(

But I also told my friends and relatives about the campaign.

Go for it, people. This may not work but it's our only chance...

... it's really eye-opening how most Congress web forms have a category for everything from "Agriculture" to "Womens' Issues"... but no "Civil Liberties".

Those who would see Pelosi and Hoyer as joined at the hip should remember that Hoyer was not Pelosi's choice as majority leader. She wanted John Murtha. Hoyer won the post easily (149-64) despite Pelosi's support of Murtha, but perhaps Pelosi knew something that the old-boy network in the House didn't. At least she was willing to stake her newfound prestige as Speaker on it.

I ask again, shooter: what has happened to your brain? You used to be worth debating; you used to make points that made sense. (I rarely agreed, but they were coherent arguments). By contrast, this is the third post of yours I've read today that's total gibberish. Are you drunk? -- Jordan Orlando

Gibberish? You seemed able to absorb and attempt to deflect the "alleged" post readily enough, yes? :^)

That said, I don't know how closely you've followed the blog lately, but the better commenters have left. I enjoyed the back and forth with you and ondellette particularly, but now internecine squabbling and the ravings of fringe conspiracy theorists are the norm. Frankly there's no one here worth arguing with. So I make my point and go, hopefully adding a bit of reality to the mix and fodder for the foamers.

There's also the very odd circumstance of being the resident contrarian and declared for Obama. How disconcerting is that?

Lastly, this blog is restricted to legal issues, and trashing personalities. Perhaps my comments reflect an impatience with all the negativity reflected here - looking at ways to exact revenge on Bush, rather than looking forward to a less belligerent future.

I've been looking at other blogs trying to find a group interesting enough to overcome the inertia holding me here, but so far nothing pops out as worthwhile yet.
So that's the story so far. Where have you been lately?

Gibberish? You seemed able to absorb and attempt to deflect the "alleged" post readily enough, yes? :^)

Given you yourself, after repeated correction, continue to insist white is black and the program under discussion was in fact legal? "Gibberish" is being charitable.

That said, I don't know how closely you've followed the blog lately, but the better commenters have left. I enjoyed the back and forth with you and ondellette particularly,

Ah, so finally you admit you're a masochist who enjoys getting kicked in the balls. Finally, an honest admission from you.

but now internecine squabbling and the ravings of fringe conspiracy theorists are the norm.

Which tend to be a great deal less fanciful than the rest of your ilk over at Townhall and RedState.

Frankly there's no one here worth arguing with. So I make my point and go, hopefully adding a bit of reality to the mix and fodder for the foamers.

'Reality' such as yours makes a Harlequin romance novel look like the finest work of Fyodor Dostoevsky. And quite frankly we could do with out such dross.

There's also the very odd circumstance of being the resident contrarian and declared for Obama. How disconcerting is that?

It earns you nothing but well-deserved mockery. Even the unlamented (and hopefully by now disbarred) Bart was a better 'contrarian' than you've proved; he at least pretended to know what he was talking about.

Lastly, this blog is restricted to legal issues, and trashing personalities.

Correct on the first, incorrect on the second. Some contrarian you're turning out to me.

Perhaps my comments reflect an impatience with all the negativity reflected here - looking at ways to exact revenge on Bush, rather than looking forward to a less belligerent future.

What is this "less belligerent future" you refer to? A sane, clear-eyed reading of current trends suggests we're going to see a veritable explosion of political and cutural violence, both domestically and internationally, thanks to the current Administration's botches at empire and hegemony.

I've been looking at other blogs trying to find a group interesting enough to overcome the inertia holding me here, but so far nothing pops out as worthwhile yet.

Perhaps then you'll take advice offered earlier and remove yourself from the human gene pool.

So that's the story so far. Where have you been lately?

Cearly in saner, more realistic place than you. I'd offer my pity, but you've long since proven yourself unworthy.