It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
Thoughts on how I should respond.....?
Originally posted by The Old American
Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
Thoughts on how I should respond.....?
Why respond? You'll just get another form letter like the above one. Any chance of seeing him face-to-face? He can't send a form letter then. But he can give you a canned response, I guess. Or have you arrested as a terrorist. Maybe you should just be quiet and docile like he wants you to be.
/TOA
Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
Originally posted by The Old American
Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
Thoughts on how I should respond.....?
Why respond? You'll just get another form letter like the above one. Any chance of seeing him face-to-face? He can't send a form letter then. But he can give you a canned response, I guess. Or have you arrested as a terrorist. Maybe you should just be quiet and docile like he wants you to be.
/TOA
I'm sure the response he sent was the common, generated e-mail he sends everyone. I know I'm not important enough for him to actually take the time to write. I will, however, be attending his next townhall meeting, and I'm going to let him have it if given the opportunity.
Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
I'm sure the response he sent was the common, generated e-mail he sends everyone. I know I'm not important enough for him to actually take the time to write. I will, however, be attending his next townhall meeting, and I'm going to let him have it if given the opportunity.
Thoughts on how I should respond.....?
Originally posted by marg6043
Dear if you are willing to take what comes with the "bothering" of the elite, be my guess and respond, my husband and I were audited for the three years that I was sending letters to my congressman for the bad policies that they were making against my state and the nation.
Each time I got very generic letters from them, as you know this letters are made in advance so they are the same to all the recipients.
We didn't care about the audits eventually they has stop since I stop sending letters.
Originally posted by Version100
Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
I'm sure the response he sent was the common, generated e-mail he sends everyone. I know I'm not important enough for him to actually take the time to write. I will, however, be attending his next townhall meeting, and I'm going to let him have it if given the opportunity.
Being that these are touchy times, I strongly advise you to rephrase that last sentence.
Mindful that I work for you, I remain
Yours in Freedom
Originally posted by CitizenNum287119327
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
if you catch him in the town meeting. dont tell him your name.
that will make 2 who disagree instead of 1
Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by SaberTruth
Yes I know that is intimidation, but I stop sending e-mails and letters because I came to the realization that our politicraps do not listen to us anymore, they are going to do what their masters tells them to do.
Thoughts on how I should respond.....?
"I value and give careful consideration to the good counsel that I receive from you and all those whom I have the privilege to represent in Congress. I refer to that good counsel as the "wisdom of the district."
Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
I wrote my Congressman in response to his vote of "yes" on HR 514, the extension of certain provisions of the Patriot Act. This thread can originally be found HERE
Here is my original e-mail to my Congressman...
Mr. Rigell (actually the staffer who will read this and then discard it without Mr. Rigell ever seeing it),
I am a Conservative, and I believe in the Constitution and it's original intent and meaning as the founders wrote it, but it would appear that you do not. I voted for you in last November's election, although I must admit that I was hesitant to do so. I feared that you were just another "establishment RINO Republican", mainly because you did everything to dodge a question about social security being unconstitutional on a local radio show, but I still voted for you. Your vote of "yes" on the recent Patriot Act extension confirms to me why I hesitated. You are in gross violation of your oath of office, and because of that you will no longer get my support. Not only have you lost my support, but I will work tirelessly and diligently to see to it that this current term is the only one that you will ever serve.
Your vote of "yes" on the Patriot Act extension will help to destroy whatever is left of the 4th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and for that you are no better than the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and your predecessor Glenn Nye. You are an abomination to Constitutional Conservatives everywhere. I knew that I was right about you when you were campaigning last year, and this is one of the few times in my life where I wish that I had been wrong. The next time you are sitting around with all of the other freedom hating, progressive, elitist, ruling class degenerates that you call peers, have a round of 100 year old scotch on me.
and here is his response....
June 2, 2011
Dear Mr. *******,
Thank you very much for contacting me to express your concerns with H.R. 514, to extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business records, individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers, and roving wiretaps until December 8, 2011. I value and give careful consideration to the good counsel that I receive from you and all those whom I have the privilege to represent in Congress. I refer to that good counsel as the "wisdom of the district."
As you may know, Rep. James Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 514 on January 26, 2011. This bill would extend two expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and one provision from the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.
Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to request access to tangible third party business records, such as library circulation records, firearms sales records, and tax records. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court (FISA Court) must approve these requests after the government establishes that the records are connected to cases of international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. The FISA Court judges who decide the merit of these requests are district court judges well versed in criminal and constitutional law. Further, the Chief Justice of the United States appoints FISA Court judges.
Section 206 of the Patriot Act authorizes multipoint, or roving, wiretaps. This provision allows a single wiretap to be applied to an individual, and covers any communication device that the individual may use. This prevents the need to get a separate order for every different device used by the target of an investigation. A FISA Court judge is the only person who can authorize roving wiretaps and supervise the wiretap as long as it is in effect. Further, the government is required to alert the FISA judge who authorized the wiretap when it is applied to a new phone or computer.
Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform Act amends the definition of "agent of a foreign power" to include individual foreign nationals planning or participating in terrorist activity regardless of whether they are directly affiliated with a known terrorist group. As many terrorists in recent years have acted without being a member of a terrorist organization, this provision closes the loophole that would prevent an individual who meets these criteria from being surveyed simply because they operated on their own. It is important to note that the authority provided by section 6001 cannot be used against American citizens or legal permanent residents, only foreign nationals.
I support H.R. 514, and while we disagree on this issue I appreciate the opportunity to explain my position. On February 9, 2011, I had the opportunity to question the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Michael E. Leiter, as he testified before the House Committee on Homeland Security, on which I serve. When I asked Director Leiter about the expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act, he responded, "From my perspective to have the Patriot Act expire on February 28 would be extremely problematic. It would reduce our ability to detect terrorists." Clearly, these provisions are still a major component of our homeland security strategy, which has not allowed an attack on American soil since September 11, 2001.
While I believe we must take the necessary precautions to combat terrorism, I share your concern with the protection of our civil liberties, and privacy. For this reason, during the same Homeland Security Committee hearing previously referenced, I questioned the systems in place to ensure that federal agencies do not abuse the authority granted to them by this bill. H.R. 514 is only a temporary extension, and I look forward to investigating our shared concerns of civil liberties and privacy during upcoming hearings.
It is important to me that I keep you fully informed on how I am representing you in Congress, so please visit my website rigell.house.gov and sign up for my e-newsletter. I also encourage you to join our Facebook page facebook.com/RepScottRigell. Both sites feature timely video updates on the votes I am taking on the House floor.
Mindful that I work for you, I remain
Yours in Freedom,
Scott Rigell
Member of Congress
Thoughts on how I should respond.....?