Republicans Not Aghast

It's sad to see people still supporting birthers.

It's also sad when people write in, and rather then giving their well thought out views and opinions, they waste our time by crying and moaning about a paper pointing out valid concerns and questionable views.

I think that's what reporters are supposed to do, isn't it?

Rather then insinuate a "left wing media bias", why not educate us of the facts and true positions of the person you support? Your letter made the paper so your views got just as many people looking at them as the original reported did - too bad you wasted your opportunity.

The right wing birthers are as nuts as the left wing nuts that demanded George Bush was a war criminal. Neither party has the cajones to isolate the fringe wackos.

Agreed italiansurg. Sounds like Tricia still believes in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy if she thinks this state would elect an untra right wing. Oh yes....and Tricia I assume you take FOX news as gospel. As their mantra goes "We report...you comply"

I think Taitz wrote this herself: the run on sentences, garbled thinking disguised as legalese... I googled Tricia Van Hooser and found out this letter was originally sent in anonymously..
here you can follow the trail yourself from FB to Taitz's own site, she wrote it herself! Let's see Van Hooser's birth certificate if she is an actual person!

From FB: https://www.facebook.com/dr.orly.tait...

to crazy land:
[link To Orly Taitz's website removed due to malware]

In case they revise those pages, here is Ms. Sadler's original reply to the letter from "Cowboy Joe and Blondie"

From: Martha Sadler
To: Cowboy Joe and Blondie
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: Orly Taitz

Dear Cowboy Joe and Blondie, we can’t use pseudonyms for letters. Will you use your actual names? Also, where do you live? We publish city (or county) of residence with letters. Thank you! Martha

I should get a Pulitzer.

Beware all: I got a virus from Ken_Volek's second link.

I didn't get a virus, but if you did blame Orly Taitz.

^^^

That second link has malware. My AVG antivirus sofware says it's a "Blackhole Exploit Kit".

I strongly suggest running an antivirus program if you've visited that link and have a Windows PC. More on the exploit here:

http://community.websense.com/blogs/s...

If you have Java installed on your Windows PC, later versions of the exploit will try to take advantage of security holes in Java as well ... this is why you should always update your Java Runtime when Sun/Oracle release security updates.

No Windows thus no virus for me! But thanks for the followup East Beach- of course Taitz's own site would also offer it's readers a virus.
However, she has cleaned up the letter on her site now (I publicly called her out on it on another forum in which she's active.)
No doubt Ms. Sadler can confirm the Cowboy Joe and Blondie ect ect which I as a reader would have no access to if it otherwise had not been posted on the Taitz site.

The virus came from Bush or Obama, depending on your political affiliation...

^^^

Indeed. Even Fox News' Bill O’Reilly has called Orly Taitz a "nut":

http://www.salon.com/2009/11/11/taitz...

Windows users rejoice!

The letter in Ken_Volok's second link can be safely viewed here:

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=37594

p.s. Ken_Volok, you are lucky to be either a MacOS or Linux user.

A false equivalence from Italiansurg.

It is factually correct that Obama was born in the US, so people who keep arguing the contrary should be derided or ignored. On the other hand, it is also factually correct that Bush authorized torture, which violates a treaty signed by Ronald Reagan that commits the US to prosecute government officials who were complicit in that war crime.

In addition, there are numerous Republican officials and pundits supporting the insane notion that Obama is foreign born or using the issue to raise doubts about him. I don't know of any effort by the Democratic Party to indict Bush. On the contrary, Obama has abandoned the so-called "fringe" on this issue by refusing to even have it considered.

Yeah, that use of "Esq." is a giveaway, not to mention an indicator of several other things. As much as I hate to source Wikipedia, well, it is convenient. ( I kind of hope she does get the nomination--should be a lot of fun.
(from WIKI):
Taitz's other claims
Taitz has also supported a number of other theories not directly related to Obama, including:
Goldman Sachs runs the United States Treasury.[21]
Baxter International has developed a bird flu vaccine that kills people.[21]
Representative Alcee Hastings and the House of Representatives are planning to build at least six labor camps.[21]
Hugo Chávez owns the software that runs American voting machines,[19]
FactCheck is untrustworthy because of its links to the Annenberg Foundation.[19]
Taitz has also advocated numerous Internet-related theories, including PayPal attacks, the deletion of her Wikipedia entry, and Google's flagging her webpage as an attack site and suppressing search results for her name.[19]

I didn't want to sound too partisan, but I would have to agree with pk.

I'm guessing those degrees are a shaky as Ms. Taitz's logic.

Where do you think Ms. Taitz got her law degree?

:: Registered Unaccredited Correspondence Law Schools In California ::

Taft Law School
3700 So. Susan St., Office 200
Santa Ana, CA 92704-6954
http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/Educa...

As to the Dr.-as-dentist, the degree is from Hebrew University. Fine institution, so that's a pass.

And this information is from the Orange County Superior Court records:

06cc12669...Orly Taitz D.D.S....Defendant 12/06/2006...Medical Malpractice

05cc12538... Orly Taitz D.D.S...Defendant...11/23/2005... Malpractice-Medical

04cc06308... Orly Taitz...Defendant......05/28/2004... Contract - Spec

04cc05196... Orly Taitz... Defendant......04/23/2004... Breach Of Contract/Warranty

03cc12382... Orly Taitz......Defendant...... 10/10/2003......Breach Of Contract/Warranty

03cc12364 .....Orly Taitz .....Defendant...... 10/09/2003 ......Malpractice - Dental

03cc04813 .....Orly Taitz Defendant ...... 03/25/2003 ......Malpractice-Medical

00cc11017 .....Orly Taitz Defendant...... 09/14/2000 ......Malpractice - Dental

718165 ...... Orly Taitz ......Defendant......09/30/1993 ......Malpractice - Dental

Reminds me of "Dr." Agnes Huff, that nut-job flack Wendy McCaw hired back in the day, who got her doctorate from a out-of business 'diploma mill' called Columbia Pacific University.

Ms. Huff:
http://www.disaster-resource.com/arti...

Columbia Pacific U.:
http://web.archive.org/web/1999020901...

PK: While you are correct in bringing up the sins of the Republican Party, would you (and Binky--should she choose to respond) also be willing to address the fact that Obama supports the Patriot Act as well as the National Defense Authorization Act?

I broke away from the belief that I have to support one or the other of these oppressive political parties long ago, and it was very liberating to be able to see things as they are.

When all is said and done, all of our rantings are pointless because the Republicans will choose whoever they will choose and if it's Dr. Orly Taitz Esq than so be it.

Sincerely, Bill Clausen, H.S.G.*
*(High School Graduate)

Bill
I believe it's appalling that Obama has signed on to some of the terrible precedents established by the Bush/Cheney security apparatus.

On the other hand, given the realities, the President next year will either be Obama or Romney, and there are significant differences between them and between their parties, and that's aside from the possibility of a Republican getting to appoint yet another right-wing ideologue or two to a Supreme Court that's already shown a commitment to partisan politics over judicial sense.

Either way they can arrest and detain people without trial based on suspicion alone so when our constitutional rights have been eliminated the Right/Left polemic doesn't matter.

Let's not forget that Capps, Feinstein, Gallegly, Boxer, and the majority of Congress and the Senate support this bill.

^^^

I don't know how many pieces of legislation our representatives in Congress or the President act on each year. But I don't have any expectation they will always vote the way I would like them to.

But that doesn't preclude me from making a personal decision as to who I want to vote for.

As to whether or not there are substantial differences between candidates on the left/right, that is a subjective opinion that depends on your personal priorities.

For example, if the Patriot Act were the only issue a voter cared about, then yes, maybe there isn't much of a difference between the standard fare offered by the left & the right.

But if you care about other issues, say the environment, social security, health care, foreign policy, fiscal policy, energy policy, regulation of financial institutions, consumer protection, social issues like abortion or religion ... then I think there are substantive differences between candidates from the parties.

On my list of "important issues" it's usually pretty easy for me to make a choice.

The hard part is figuring out what a candidate really stands for. During the primaries, candidates sometimes cater more to extremists in their party. Then during the general election, they moderate their rhetoric to capture votes outside their party. The trick is to figure out what they did to get votes versus what they really think.

I think that's more of a problem for conservatives these days than for liberals.

The question of where he "really" stands is beside the point: Romney has already demonstrated that he doesn't stand for anything other than the belief that he's entitled to be President and is justified in saying whatever it takes, whether true or not, to achieve that goal. The extremists in Congress who control his party have already made it clear that they have no intention of letting him govern from anywhere but their own intransigent right-wing ideology,

So, we've established yet again that Orly is an embarrassing joke to her family and her party, right? Nothing new here.

I find it unusual that a candidate is sending in phony letters of support on their behalf to newspapers, especially one who claims other people's legal records are falsified.. Is Clifford Irving running her campaign?

@Ken: "Is Clifford Irving running her campaign?"

You've never seen a campaign like that of Oily Teatz -- no campaign manager, no events, no professional website, no call for volunteers, NO PLAN/STRATEGY and total focus on best buddy polls only (i.e., where anyone can vote over and over again, on the 'net, totally useless and non-representative). Her only effort to date is having bought the mailing list from tea-party favorite and failed senatorial candidate in Nevada, Sharon Angle and an ad in the Washington Times that isn't read in L.A. And of course, when she loses, it will be because the election was fixed and the GOP is corrupt. What a dope.

@italiansurg: "The right wing birthers are as nuts as the left wing nuts that demanded George Bush was a war criminal."

Right. Because the right-wing racists who, without evidence, question the legitimacy of the country's first black president are equally juxtaposed to those infuriated about their tax dollars being used for *two* baseless Middle East invasions resulting hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths.

Please keep calling yourself a moderate. It's hysterical!

Well said, ETR...Beware the purveyors of false equivalency. They are either badly mistaken or deliberately misleading in an effort to muddy the waters, discourage voting.

Gee, who is it that works so hard to keep voters home with their faux voter ("election") fraud talk and new voting requirement legislation?

"But if you care about other issues, say the environment, social security, health care, foreign policy, fiscal policy, energy policy, regulation of financial institutions, consumer protection, social issues like abortion or religion ... then I think there are substantive differences between candidates from the parties."

What good are these issues to someone sitting in a jail cell on trumped up charges of being a terrorist? What good is it when you live in fear that one wrong comment questioning the government might get you a ticket to a re-education center, or when your loved one is sitting in a "detention center" somewhere but you don't know where because their habeus corpus rights are thrown out the window in the interest of "national security"?

So we have a person who looks like a Drag Queen making silly arguments about Obama's right to run for president (even though his mother being an American citizen at the time of his birth makes him a U.S. citizen) running against a career politician with a history of supporting violations of our rights.
When someone flips the bird to the Constitution--a document which is NOT about your right to free contraception or free whatever--but is a document to keep the power of the government in check so we don't have another situation similar to that from which early settlers fled, I will not reward that behavior by voting for that person.

I realize that you don't think this can happen in America, but look at Germany during the Cabaret days of the 1920's; who would have thought that a few years later all basic rights would have disappeared?

It happens bit by bit: gun control laws; Patriot Act, NDAA; putting people in jail for possesion of certain drugs, and a constant propaganda of telling people that these are needed measures to ensure safety. Like the analogy of the frog in the pot of water: Turn the temperature up SLOWLY and the frog will cook to death without even realizing what is happening.

Many people are too many generations removed from the oppression their immigrant ancestors faced, but for some people ("hank"--who is from Cuba) knows how this can happen ANYWHERE.

So keep arguing about your issues and keep ignoring how the politicians are appealing to your fears but if someday you find yourself sitting in an interrogation center for being subversive, or wondering what happened to your neighbor down the street who was taken away in the middle of the night, don't say you weren't warned.

As the saying goes: Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Remember also, this is NOT what my grandfather--who came here and joined the army and fought in WW1 had in mind as he was risking his life for our freedoms.

If Orly Taitz and Dianne Feinstein is that best that these two parties can come up with, than shame on the voters registered in both those parties for not replacing them with better candidates.

Really, is Feinstein the best you can do?

(part two of two)

It is your right if you are a registered Democrat to replace Feinstein, Obama, Boxer et al, with candidates who can address the issues you are concerned about without trampling all over our rights.

On the other hand, North Korea and Cuba have health care, abortion, regulation of financial institutions, and you don't have to deal with those pesky people sharing the Good News with you (religion isn't tolerated) so if you really get sick of the American way of freedom, you can always go to those places. On the other hand, you can save yourself the effort of having to pack your bags and go to those places because if people keep sticking their heads in the sand and soon we will have our own version of a totalitarian state.

Yup, Obama signs on to the completely unAmerican Patriot Act and invades the sovereign country of Pakistan to execute a suspected terrorist without putting him on trial. If Bush had been smart enough to find Bin Laden and executed him like this administration did, the nut job left would have added that to his list of War Crimes. By the way, I agreed with Obama murdering Bin Laden...Oh yea, Obama and the left ranted about Guantanamo Bay being an illegal prison but that has not been closed either.
Just how are the Birthers any more crazy than the hordes that used to hang Bush in effigy?
No wonder no one listens to either extreme except for their own sycophants.
The last President I could stand was Clinton, a notorious misogynist that the left failed to take to task for his enormous personal failings because he was their boy. Despite being a train wreck as a personal human he governed rather well on balance.

I'm Roosevelt Republican and an Eisenhower Democrat.

italiansurg
Guantanamo hasn't been closed because fear-mongering politicians of both parties have blocked Obama on this as on other issues.

You repeat your nonsensical false equivalence. In fact, birthers have influence in the Republican Party on both the state and national levels; it's feeds into the "Obama isn't a real American" narrative, which is why people who should know better are so coy about repudiating it. I don't know of anyone who hung Bush in effigy having even a shred of influence in the Democratic Party.

And I guess you must consider Reagan a member of the nut job left for denouncing torture and signing a treaty against it.

I agree with you KV.

Torture is as subjective as what makes someone attractive. Reagan's definition was entirely different than the current definition and, by the way, as a new immigrant towards the end of Reagan's term I did not like him as President.

Oh yea, the Birthers are running the Republican Party about as much as the Tea Party dingbats are a majority of racists because the Black Caucus made up a story that was later disproven. Nice Progressive talking points though...
You continue to prove my point about partisanship.

BTY- who blocked Obama his first two years when he controlled both houses; the Democrats, and Obama could not even lead his own party. But somehow the Republicans are the only problem and unilaterally obstructionist?
Who voted along with Bush to destabilize the entire middle east with his idiotic war against a dictator that was irrelevant to us? The Democrats; those evil war mongering Republicans did it with equal help.

@italiansurg: "Torture is as subjective as what makes someone attractive."

I think this says far more about *you* than it does about anything political.

BTW - torture is a legal definition - and if you actually did an ounce of research before spouting off these INSANE statements, you would understand that anyone with an ounce of common sense would agree that the definition of "torture" isn't subjective at all.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/tex...

@italiansurg: "Who voted along with Bush to destabilize the entire middle east with his idiotic war against a dictator that was irrelevant to us? The Democrats; those evil war mongering Republicans did it with equal help."

Yeah, this is total bull. 61% of Congressional Dems voted against the war resolution. That war authorization would not have passed the House had the Dems held the majority.

And the definition is not open to interpretation? Wow! So does anguish mean anything that makes you uncomfortable? If I look at you with a skunk eye is that torture? Thank God we now know that the left has the answers that the rest of us lesser folks are striving to understand. Perhaps you should publish a new manifesto so we can follow lock step... That could be the next glorious crusade for the wildly successful Occupy Whatever Movement; The definitive answers to the questions that the majority of Americans have not figured out.

Obviously your interpretation is that you are correct about these things while folks like BC and Hank and myself, even KV, admit that there are few empirical answers.

@italisnsurg: "And the definition is not open to interpretation?"

"Open to interpretation" within reason, sure. But "open to interpretation" does not mean throwing out basic common sense where torture can mean anything when convenient. According to you, the definition I linked to is as subjective as whether someone likes sushi or doesn't like sushi - which is *absurd*, to say the least...

@italiansurg: "Thank God we now know that the left has the answers that the rest of us lesser folks are striving to understand. Perhaps you should publish a new manifesto so we can follow lock step..."

I think I'll call, "How to Easily Debunk Right-Wing Nonsense in One Easy Step". I promise to include you in the "thank you" section.

@italiansurg:"Obviously your interpretation is that you are correct about these things while folks like BC and Hank and myself, even KV"

You, Hank, and BC - I think there's a recently released Farrelly Brothers film about you three folks.

Here is what Reagan signed, and the Senate ratified in 1988:

:: PART I , Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat...

Yes, much different than the narrower re-definition as provided by Bush & Co. in practice, and in their Military Commissions Act, which attempts to re-write the War Crimes Act and exempt all the participants in War On Terror-sanctified torture (and its design and authorization) from prosecution.

Even the current Army Field Manual spells it out in HUMINT collection:
":: Torture is an act committed by a person under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain and suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control. :: "
http://www.cfr.org/intelligence/human...

The Treaty quoted above remains the law of our land pending a repeal by Congress.

italiansurg
No one here said that the birthers are running the Republican Party, and the legal definitions of torture are still embedded in a treaty Reagan signed and is still in effect, and by all empirical measures include acts committed by the Bush regime in spite of the claims of his co-conspirators that they aren't. Your incapacity to deal with reality is a clear example of partisan blindness.

So predictably, PK, Binky, and ETR don't address the point I've raised and ETR goes so far as to insult me for doing so.

@billclausen: "What good are these issues to someone sitting in a jail cell on trumped up charges of being a terrorist?"

You missed the theme of my comments.

My point was that for people who are not single-issue voters (voters who choose to limit their interests) there are many differences between the candidates.

You tried to turn my comments into a referendum on the Patriot Act ... but I could easily take a page from your playbook and say something like:

What good are the Patriot Act debates to a senior citizen who can't afford to pay their rent or medical bills?

So really, its all subjective. Personal liberties may be your hot-button issue (and I'm not saying it's not unimportant) but for other Americans, they're going to use different criteria for assessing candidates and they will see differences.

To me, implying that Bush's or Obama's or Romney's differences on other issues are irrelevant because they support the Patriot Act just flies in the face of reality.

^^^
"not unimportant" should be "unimportant" :)

Bill
Your comments were so filled with non sequiturs and irrelevant and confusing side issues it was hard to figure out how to respond without sounding too condescending. But you demand a response, so I'll try.

The first requirement of an informed citizenry is to make a realistic assessment of the existing political situation and act accordingly. Yes, both Democrats and especially Republicans have shown a cowardly willingness to sacrifice individual rights to fear and expediency. On the other hand, it's hard to figure out what your references to North Korea and Cuba are supposed to illuminate. If you really live in fear that one wrong comment questioning the US government might get you a ticket to a re-education center, you need to set aside your overwrought and false analogies to irrelevant historical situations and calm down.

If you refuse to choose between a flawed Democrat and (in my opinion) an even more flawed Republican who differ in major ways on issues of great significance, including US relations with Iran and Israel, the role of the government in ensuring health care and reducing inequalities of opportunity, and so on, but you offer no realistic alternative beyond your fears and complaints, then you aren't helping.

Finally, if your grandfather thought he was fighting in WWI for US freedoms he was tragically mistaken, unless you believe the once he conquered France, the Kaiser planned to land his troops in the US and install a totalitarian regime here.

At PK and ETR. What it comes down to is that neither of you have any suggestion of how to address the erosion of our civil liberties.

If you were willing to work within your own party (based on what I've read, I'm assuming you're backing Obama) to retain the issues important to you, while doing away with the Patriot Act/NDAA/God knows what they'll come up with next we'd be able to agree on something.

I won't waste my time explaining to you what I wrote because either you get it, or you don't, but rest assured that just because the status quo Democrats advocate some issues that you support, doesn't mean that in the long run things will turn out well because as more power is concentrated into the hands of fewer people, the opportunity for totalitarianism (i.e. getting hauled off to jail as an example) increases.

As the saying goes: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". In the end, you can say I'll be wrong on this, but based on current trends and history, I'll hedge my best.

If your exaggerated misreading of what history supposedly teaches about current politics leads you to decide that it doesn't matter whether Obama or Romney or which party governs this country, you're not part the solution, you're part of the problem.

Trite and mildly put, pk but absolutely correct in regard to Bill's over-the-top and off-topic (but still valid) fears of a government with too much power to violate our rights.

Bill, there's forests out there amongst those trees. This particular forest is about a crazy by the name of Taitz, one of a small bunch of crazies known as birthers (or birferz if you will), who are at base, in many cases, bigots. Some are just plain crazy paranoids. Others are carnival barkers. Some are more than one strain, many are just misinformed idiots who don't mind being that in the least.

What do you think of the birthers, Bill?

It's problematic when any criticism of the President is immediately assumed to be rooted in racism. I'm sure even the President agrees.

"What do you think of the birthers, Bill?"

I've already covered that topic with my comment on the third paragraph on my April 20, 2012 at 7:03 p.m. comment.

In anticipation of "you're dodging the question Bill" I'll make it a little more clear: I think the Birthers are ridiculous.

Good on ya, bill. Now you've finished answering this column!

Ken, what's with the strawman claim that any criticism of the President is immediately assumed to be rooted in racism? I'm sure the POTUS would agree too -- if it were true. But it's not. And the smokey you're blowing in pretense that it is seems designed only to discredit any credible suggestion that some criticisms ARE rooted in racism, especially when many/all other rational basis's are found to be lacking.

"Plutodog"
Unless you wish to post under your real name, don't expect me to play along or feel the least bit inclined or obligated to submit myself to your interrogation.
As for your condescending manner towards me, have fun chewing on your foot.

I think I can sum it up be saying this: I fear what may come, my critics argue what hasn't happened.

Ken, Hank, Italiansurg, and myself differ from Obama and Company in one major way: We don't want to see people thrown in prison and denied their constitutional rights. Just remember that in a totalitarian state even if you go along with the program if you're merely suspected of being subversive, off to camp you go. In such a situation, vindictive ex-spouses/lovers can really make your life miserable.

Amen William.
I could not care less about the perceived root of criticism since it is impossible to know what is motivating someones mind. The Dem's made me crazy during Obama's first year or so when every criticism of Obama was deemed to be rooted in racism or the fault of Bush. Likewise, any criticism of Bush was called 'un American" by the Repub's and we were told that criticism during war was un patriotic. In both cases these were self serving defensive stances that never lead to any dialogue or truth; either I was a bigot or un American...

There are in fact Democrats who don't just consider it appropriate to criticize Obama, they've done so themselves on issues ranging from his actions on security measures (as in this series of comments) to his propensity to abandon liberal positions when negotiating economic issues with intransigent Republicans. So if you think that "the Dem's" have deemed every criticism of Obama to be rooted in racism or the fault of Bush, it's no wonder you drive yourself crazy.

Mr. PK: I do not drive myself crazy over anything. There is nothing crazy about me. Read my previous posts and you will find I'm anything but crazy.

PK,
The issue of racism entered the topic not just because Orly Taitz is a bona fide racist; but because criticisms such as you listed of Obama, all concrete policy matters was instantly met with the veiled accusation that the commentator is a racist (if you start asking people what they think of the birthers after they've criticized Obama on POLICY issues, you're calling them a racist.) It's especially pathetic when it comes from an anonymous writer.

This is ridiculous: "all concrete policy matters was instantly met with the veiled accusation that the commentator is a racist. (if you start asking people what they think of the birthers after they've criticized Obama on POLICY issues, you're calling them a racist.)"

It's hard to figure out what you're trying to say, but if you really believe that every defense of all of Obama's policies has relied on the accusation that his critics are racist, you've been tuned in to your own grievances rather than to reality.

What's truly pathetic is your sad strategy of trying to hide your inability to understand or respond to people's ideas or arguments by dismissing them for signing off with anything other than their full name, as though that had anything to do with the strength or validity of what they're saying.

The fact that you use your full name doesn't make your arguments any the less incoherent.

PK, ETR, Binky and others: What are you doing to reverse this trend of spying on people and arresting/detaining them without trial? Why can't you find someone who advocates the issues that are important to you without violating our rights? Feinstein, Boxer, Capps, and Obama do not respect our basic civil rights. Why can't you do better?...or is it that you support these intrusions into our lives? Which is it?

^^^

The Patriot Act isn't one of those topics I follow closely. But some quick Googling indicates when reauthorization came up in late 2011, the Democrats did a heck of a lot more than their Republican colleagues to vote it down and reign in the more egregious parts:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum...

As for Feinstein, she may be too close to the legislation in her capacity as Chair of the Intelligence Committee, but she is only one Senator (although an influential one) and it would be a mistake to peg a politician on the basis of a single issue.

It should be noted the ACLU, that spunky institution supported by many Democrats and reviled by contemporary Republicans and assorted Conservatives (perhaps not by some Libertarians), has been working to reform the Patriot Act as well.

So I don't agree with the notion that Democrats have not been trying to reign in the Patriot Act. There is a difference between the two parties on this one.

PK, don't embarass yourself by making assumptions about me or what you imagine my grievances to be unless I've stated them, thank you. And my grievance is with idealogues left and right, under cloak of Democrat and Republican; the narrow-mindedness and intellectual dishonesty, the acts of censorship and mindless prohibitions, and endless gaming with people's lives. A pox on both houses.
If you were really reading and not reacting PK, you'd see I was the one who outted Taitz as the writer of this letter.

Have a nice day.

"Why can't you find someone who advocates the issues that are important to you without violating our rights? Feinstein, Boxer, Capps, and Obama do not respect our basic civil rights."
-- billclausen

It doesn't make sense to ask a rhetorical question like that in the context of the Patriot Act (or even Civil Liberties in general). Why?

Here's the vote breakdown for the Patriot Act:

Republicans: Yeas = 211, Nays = 3
Democrats: Yeas = 145, Nays = 62
Independents: Yeas = 1, Nays = 1

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll3...

So pretty much *everyone* in Congress was complicit, but the Democrats less so. That was a period of post-911 fear-mongering by the Bush Administration and is a lesson in thinking rationally vs. succumbing to popular pressure and emotions.

Now, since you included her in your list of scoundrals, how about Congresswoman Capps? There have been at least four major votes to extend or modify the Patriot Act:

HR.514 - Extension of various Patriot Act provisions

S.2271 - Patriot Act Reauthorization bill

HR.3199 - Patriot Act Reauthorization

AMNDT.280 - Require warrant for seizing library records, etc.

How did Congresswoman Capps vote on the above? Capps voted NAY on every reauthorization bill and YEA on the amendment to require warrants for seizing library records.

http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/ke...

How did our neighbor to the south Republican Elton Gallegly vote? Gallegly voted the exact OPPOSITE on every vote.

http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/ke...

No difference you say?

It's possible to quantize the differences between the two as well. For example, the ACLU gives Capps a 93% civil liberties score whereas Gallegly scores 8%.

In summary, I don't buy the notion that Republicans and Democrats are equally "bad" on this issue. And singling out Capps on this one is way off track. While few come out 100% clean, there is a clear difference based on voting records.

Thanks for the info EastBeach, these details are important and I appreciate you taking the time.

How about doing away with the Patriot Act? We survived without it before.

By the way, what about the NDAA?

Another point: The fact that %more Republicans voted for the Patriot Act does not get Feinstein, Boxer, Obama, and the rest I've named off the hook. Throwing those numbers around does not negate what I said.

It's getting awfully quite in here. Is it something I said?