Frustrated with Boxer, letter I sent to all 21 regional DNC directors

We just spoke on the phone about Boxer's incompetence and/or criminality and you asked me to email you so you could answer my questions, as her equally incompetent office has either refused outright, misrepresented facts, told me I was too unsophisticated to understand all the complexities, hung up on me, pretended to be the office manager, popped gum in my ear and complained about my tone or language, but not once has clearly answered any of the following questions, no matter how phrased. They haven't even tried to provide anything remotely resembling genuine information, reasoning, or good excuses. To say I am disgusted and disappointed in a party and person I've voted for in every election I could is a galactic understatement. I gave up on even trying with Feinstein years ago: she votes her class every time. Why is she still called a Democrat, anyway?

On the economy:

1. AIG committed fraud, pure and simple: when you sell something you can't deliver, it is fraud. Selling insurance when you know you don't have the resources to cover what you've sold is intential f-r-a-u-d. It doesn't matter that you've called it CDO's, CDS's or straight insurance. No special authority is required to prosecute the perpetrators, it happens every day on smaller scale frauds. Why isn't Boxer demanding the laws be followed in this case, and why aren't the directors and officers of AIG being prosecuted?

2. Goldman Sachs seems neck deep in multiple massive fraud/ponzi schemes, yet no investigation of their role has begun, rather it seems they've been rewarded with lucrative positions within government where they can unduly influence economic policy. Geithner, Summers, Rubin and other G-S officers seem to be running the country's economic policies for the benefit of G-S and their clients. Why is this being tolerated? Why is there no investigation underway to determine if they illegally gamed the market to create the crisis? "Toxic assets" are toxic because they were misrepresented as being of higher quality than they actually were, i.e., fraud.

3. The TARP, TALF, and whatever else they've come up with is neither Boxer's nor the Treasury's private investment fund: how dare Geithner, and Paulson before him, assert the right to withhold information on who got the money under what terms, and how dare Boxer accept such an answer? I want explicit information on who got what, when they got it, the terms under which it was taken, what we the taxpayers got in return, both the asserted original value of stocks and warrants and the actual value at the time, and current value now. Where EXACTLY did the money go? If Paulson misrepresented the amounts, terms and results, why isn't he being prosecuted or otherwise being held accountable?

4. If there was ever a justification for the Patriot Act, the economic meltdown is it. It can be easily classed as a possible terrorist attack not only upon the nation but entire world. Why haven't the investigative powers if it been invoked to examine the books and emails of all involved to determine whether or not there was a concerted conspirancy to blackmail the US Treasury into giving up trillions in unaccounted for cash? If ordinary Americans can be wiretapped and have their emails searched without warrants based upon nebulous fears or information, why can those same powers be exercised upon Wall Street when there is obviously suspicious behavior resulting in direct and horrendous economic damage? After all, the innocent need fear nothing, correct?

5. The H-1B and H-2B programs and other excuses to import cheap labor are an insult to the American people. To claim that out of 350-odd million people, over 12% either unemployed or underemployed, none are qualified enough or skilled enough to fill the jobs taken by foreigners is patently unsupportable. Nearly 3,000,000 American citizens have lost their jobs in the past 15 months alone: to claim that none of those people can fill a job currently held or being held open for a foreigner is blatant corporate nonsense, and ultimately economic suicide. It bleeds the economy of circulating dollars, as the vast majority of those workers send a portion of their income back to support the family in their home economy. It bleeds the economy at the high end also, as the money saved at the corporate level is invested outside the US. So why does Boxer continue to support these programs and what is she doing to ensure Americans have real jobs that produce real, tangible goods?

6. If AIG or any other corporate entity is "too big to fail" why aren't steps being taken to limit the size of any one company to prevent it from becoming a systemtic risk? What exactly is Boxer doing to protect against this recurring?

7. The Constitution is about checks and balances. No one is guaranteed unlimited wealth and power under it. We commonly place limits upon shared resources: speed limits on highways, hunting and fishing limits, timber harvest limits and the like. Surely a billion is more than enough for one person to take from the shared resource of our economy. If we allow continued unlimited wealth-building how much suffering must the world endure because a few plutocrats compete with each other for the highest pile? After you have a billion dollars, it isn't business, it's an addiction. Why has she refused to support legislation limiting wealth to $1 billion per citizen?

On war crimes:

1. Torture is and was illegal, under state, federal, and international law. No amount of legal finesse changes what it is. Decades of study and practice have shown that it is ineffective and counterproductive. Torturers, their handlers, superiors, and the crafters of policy must not be given a free pass for this highly unethical, immoral, and nationally harmful behavior. "Just following orders" is a defense that was shattered at Nuremberg: everyone has an ethical responsibility not to follow depraved and illegal orders. Pardon the lower ranking lowlifes if you must, but the act of torturing another human being changes the spirit of the torturer more than that of the tortured: do we really want these people to continue to be employed by our government? Why does Boxer seem willing to protect criminals?

2. The torture memos alone are enough to arrest and try most of the Bush administration for war crimes, the list of his other crimes is manifold. Either we try them, or we turn them over to the World Court and let them try them, or we do both.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by apacheman]

These are some of the questions I've asked of her and failed to receive any response other than "Thank you for your interest...."

Unless you can give me some decent answers to these questions I can't find any reason to continue to support a party that seems determined to avoid accountablity for anything, one that seems more akin to a criminal cartel than a genuine political party. At this point I have absolutely NO faith in either Feinstein or Boxer. It would be best that if they cannot bring themselves to support the rule of law and the Constitution, do their duty to both their California constituents and the nation as a whole and hold accountable those who have caused this economic crisis and committed war crimes, they should resign immediately. For the California Democratic Party to continue to support them failing either taints the party and strips it of credibility and legitimacy.

Figuring out the right thing to do usually isn't difficult. Actually doing it is another thing. If Feinstein and Boxer are finding it difficult to figure out what's right and wrong in this mess, then they are the problem. If they can see the right but are too fearful to do it, then I can understand and will accept their resignation. But their current best isn't good enough: if they can't do better they must depart now, for there isn't time to wait for new elections. The situation is too dire and so far they have been slow, uncomprehending and ineffective. If deliberate, that's treason, if not, incompetence.



in disgust,


I composed this letter and sent it to all twenty-one California regional directors (minus the flames, lol) after Boxer's office blew me off yet again with pablum responses. The only way to get anything done is to keep the pressure on. Feel free to use my questions on YOUR senators.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by apacheman]

excellent post!

lets turn up the heat, and see who jumps into the fire of their own volition!

Thanks.

Actually, one of the directors said if I emailed him the questions I was asking Boxer, he would try to get me the answers.

I'll post any I get here.

as promised the first reply, and yes, he addressed me with a profanity.



--- On Wed, 4/22/09, Gary Robbins wrote:

From: Gary Robbins
Subject: Re: Frustrated with Boxer
To: ""
Date: Wednesday, April 22, 2009, 2:55 PM
Hey #head
1. I have no idea who you are.
2. I have never spoken to you in my life.
3. Don't care if I ever speak, e-mail, or otherwise communicate with you again.
4. Probably would not have minded discussing items with you except you come off like an arrogant, pompous ass who claims to have discussed the items you wrote about to myself and others when you have not. This makes me think you more than likely have not spoken to anyone else you e-mailed with your ranting and raving. Perhaps a more honest approach to people would be better received. I doubt you had a conversation with anyone on your e-mail list.----Anyone I contacted had no idea who you were either.




My reply:


First off, this was sent to you as an informational copy, I'm sorry I didn't make that clear...but it was composed per the request of August Longo during a phone conversation I had with him this morning after yet another frustrating experience with Boxer's office. Mayme Hubert, whom I also spoke with this morning suggested that concerted action was our only hope and that I should contact all regional directors to explain my frustration with the mess in Washington and utter lack of response to my requests for information. So I sent it to all the regional directors in hopes that someone might actually answer them, or at least think about the issues confronting us. Again, sorry I didn't make clear that the original addressee was August Longo.



Second, I expect a bit more decorum from a regional director...I am forwarding your reply to the chairman, perhaps he can explain to you why you shouldn't insult constituents with genuine questions that deserve honest answers.



Third, I will be posting your reply in a national forum and let people judge you and the Democratic Party as they see fit.



As for who I am, sir...I am an American citizen who fought for his country, supported the Democratic Party for decades, voted for Feinstein and Boxer in every election they've run in save the last, taught college for eleven years, and have done everything in my power to uphold the oath I swore to protect and defend the Constitution. My post to you and the others was/is part of that defense. Your response is part of the problem.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by apacheman]

[edit on 22-4-2009 by apacheman]

have you gotten any further?

any more problems with trying to get answers?

we need an update... or I do looks like im the only one following this with you

This is the last I've heard:


From:
This sender is DomainKeys verified
"[email protected]"
Add sender to Contacts
To:
""
Your treated accordingly to how you treat or address others. Apology accepted however even if you have to rewrite please do not include people as if they were included in the original text or conversation, especially after I called a couple of other RDs and they had no idea what was going on either. I don't mind being included but not taken advantage of by having me believe everyone you sent your e-mail to had been involved in the original conversation.
I am also a Vet, 67-69, so that card does not apply to wave in my face. You may post as you wish but the truth is you misrepresented yourself in your e-mail by insinuating that everyone you emailed was standing with you concerning your issues with Barbara Boxer.
Gary Robbins

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T



I called both the LA and Sacremento offices the day after I received this and asked them to look into it, as I felt the original response was more than inappropriate and both responses inadequate and unresponsive to my issues. While they agreed and promised to look into it, I haven't heard a thing yet.