Part 2 of 2 – DIANNE FEINSTEIN & BARBARA BOXER: NO REPRESENTATION FOR ME

(– Continued from Part 1, previous post.)

Here’s what occurred yesterday as I attempted to communicate my recent concerns to the San Diego, CA office of (Democrat) Senator Dianne Feinstein, regarding the following issues:

– HR 985, which would affect the issues of Barack Obama’s questionable Constitutional qualifications to the U.S. Presidency (while Feinstein’s office argued the latter issue [I'll discuss in greater details in the following] and discontinued discussion about HR 985 and my concerns about that or anything else).

Female employee #1 (1 of 2 because a second one will be referred to farther along in this story) answered my telephone call. I displayed polite and even self-apologetic posture, admitting that I “may be misinformed, I’m not a politician, I may not correctly understand this first issue among my three reasons for calling today” and then continued on to refer to my disagreement with a House bill (HR 985) which would enable a scenario by which Barack Obama’s birth circumstances (and, therefore, Constitutional eligibility for the Presidency) (among other politicians’) would remain unchallengeable (except via the courts).

Together, while on the phone, I looked up the legislation on the internet, Woman #1 from Feinstein’s office said she was doing so, also.

To readers here, allow me at this time to provide background information as to why I was/am concerned about this legislation and why I TRIED to express my concerns to Senator Feinstein’s office — Boxer’s office, pending as of this call yesterday — as follows:

Please tell your senators to vote NO on HR 985. This bill is “stealth legislation” and will protect Obama from disclosing his ties to fraudulent real estate transactions, providing his birth certificate to prove he meets the citizenship requirements for office of the President as stated in the Constitution, and if passed, will protect others in his administration from disclosure of concealed transactions between government and businesses such as House Speaker Pelosi’s dealings with her husbands interest in Dole Foods and off-shore labor activities. If this stealth legislation continues to be passed virtually unnoticed, it won’t be long before any of the State courts would be rendered useless against getting information from agencies having records involving the president, his administration, Congress, or their staff.

Returning, now, here, to the phone call underway and my reiteration of the experience:

I continued to try to speak. Woman #1 snarled, sarcastically, instead — changing the subject here to one of Barack Obama’s alleged Constitutional eligibility for the Presidency, as she cavalierly dismissed my concerns about them, saying:

“That’s just what people who don’t like him say about him, because they don’t like him.”

I did lose my patience. Her remarks were time-wasters and irritants in the greater concerns of issues that I’d hoped to be able to communicate to a Senator.

So I asserted:

I like this COUNTRY. It has nothing to do with liking Barack Obama or not liking him — I’m sure if I met the man at a party or something I’d think he was well mannered and such but if he was to start exposing his views, I’d surely soon conclude we had little in common and I probably would not want to associate with him in that sense, but this isn’t about “liking” him or not “liking” him, it’s about him being or not being Constitutionally eligible for the Presidency of the United States!

I continued in my remarks on the phone as follows:

I wrote to Senator Feinstein about this months ago — posed several exceptionally specific questions about specific issues and requested her response on them all — and I received, instead, a pitifully wan, vacant response from Feinstein that was so general as to be meaningless if not alarming, in which Feinstein claimed “Obama was born in the United States and is therefore eligible for the Presidency.”

Which (as I continued) is so unspecific as to be horrifying, particularly since Feinstein’s supposedly a member of the U.S. Senate who holds committee positions regarding national security and identity issues, and here she hasn’t so much as acknowledged any understanding of either Obama’s birth circumstances with any specifics nor in relationship with the Constitutional requirements for the Presidency (which are more profound than simply “being born in the United States” and that has not been proven, anyway, beyond a reasonable doubt, where he was born, when, but the Constitutional requirements are more profound than birthplace within the nation).

The woman in Feinstein’s office said — her voice now more harsh, louder, her sarcasm and dismissive tone toward me and my concerns more noticeable than ever:

“The Supreme Court has PROVED his citizenship!”

I responded:

That is a LIE, that’s an utter lie. If you think that’s true, though, and I’m somehow unaware of this, then please identify to me what the decision was in which the Supreme Court arrived at that conclusion and what the date of that decision was, how it’s identified.

Woman #1 could not do that and said, her voice quiet now:

…that was a mistake, but, but (now growing loud again), they threw the cases out! They won’t hear the cases, they refused to hear the cases…

I interrupted her and overspoke her at that and said:

No, they have never deliberated about or heard THE ISSUE, they’ve refused to hear various cases, so far, due to procedural problems but they’ve NEVER DELIBERATED THE ISSUE ITSELF, that hasn’t happened yet.

I also said to Woman #2 that she should broaden her reading horizons and try to range outside of a Democratic Party Talking Points Box and read more because she reflected a lack of understanding of this serious issue and was misleading the public accordingly, while also making utterly false statements to the public in the process. I strongly objected to these deceitful statements being issued from a Senator’s office.

I continued — more information here:

…the only person who had sworn as to Barack Obama being Constitutionally eligible for the Presidency was Nancy Pelosi and that Pelosi’s ethical credibility was less than zero at this point, such that there needs to be a serious consideration focused on what might be a…

I was interrupted at that point by Woman #1 whose huffy-breathing sounds indicated her growing anger and intolerance, so I pushed on through and said I wanted to get on with my request to communicate my concerns as to the other issues to the Senator (so I assumed I was doing, my intent in calling her office), most specifically, as to the Sotomayor nomination, who I described, in my views, is an ethnic-supremacist, AND that I wanted to complain to the Senator about what has been exposed as Feinstein’s apparent covert plans to whittle away at the Second Amendment.

I referred to the article in the NRA’s May 2009 publication (America’s 1st Freedom) as to what I’d read, wherein Feinstein is quoted, and that surely Feinstein’s office could get a copy for their own reference — but that the article reveals that Senator Feinstein has political goals planned for an opportune time when she can spring infringements upon the nation as to Second Amendment Rights, and I said that all American citizens have the right to keep and bear arms and if Senator Feinstein has plans to undermine that Amendment, she should make those plans known to the voters without laying in wait to bring about these changes covertly…

I reiterated that the article includes specific quotes by Senator Feinstein that reveal her plans and intents. There’s little there to acknowledge that Feinstein is being lucid and straightforward with voters but is, instead, literally waiting for an opportune time, a probable national emergency or tragedy, upon which to frame her reductions to Second Amendment Rights, which I deem, then, illustrates her covert intents.

Woman #1 said something about Feinstein not having such plans (despite public quotes to the contrary in media, which I’d just provided an example of)…

And I declared:

I’d trust the NRA’s information long before I would that from Senator Feinstein based upon my experiences to-date, and Woman #1 blurted out, something to the effect, with exceptional sarcasm, some wretched allusion disparaging me and the NRA, called me “Ma’am” and then hung-up the phone with a bang (no pun intended).

Nothing as to my concerns was communicated, I assume, by Woman #1 except a disrespect of me as a citizen attempting to communicate to a representative (Senator) what my concerns as a citizen are at the time of my contact.

So I paused and thought about this. Ten minutes later, I decided to call back and tell the same office (San Diego, CA) how little I appreciated their behavior, that them hanging-up on my call and refusing to consider my opinions as a U.S. citizen and resident of the state of California was utterly and completely unacceptable.

My second call was answered by a nicer, far more polite individual in Feinstein’s San Diego office (Woman #2), who TRIED to rationalize Woman #1′s behavior as this (another lie, unfortunately, despite it being politely stated):

She was trying to place your call on hold but disconnected the call instead.

Though Woman #2 was composed, as I’ve said, she was lying. Or she’d accepted a lie from Woman #1 about her awful behavior toward me and I said as much.

Woman #2 trailed off…so I (again) pushed on through this time-wasting behavioand said I would like to express my concerns about issues important to me.

So I repeated the same list (as identified at the top of this post) to Woman #2 as I had to Woman #1.

Woman #2 was as stuttering and uninformed about the issues as was Woman #1, though #2 was at least polite while being so, contrary to #2.

Specifically, Woman #2 was intent as was Woman #1 on the “Barack Obama birth certificate” issue (interestingly enough) in denying any question raised about that, by saying:

But, but, the Clerk (state of Hawaii)…she verified that, that he was born there…

I said, clarifying again:

That has not happened. That “clerk” as you call her has, quite specifically, NOT VERIFIED that Barack Obama “was born there” BUT HAS ONLY SAID that “there was a certificate on file” (but that does not mean that the contents of that document “verified” or proved that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, the entire specificity of the contents of the document were avoided in the public statements made about “the document on file,” in other words.

I continued:

…and Hawaii, at the time that Obama claims to have been born there, was and was for years before and after that, a document-mill state. Anyone from anywhere without so much as any proof of any residency or local/state birth could and did simply go into a state office, fill out a form with what they wanted to appear on a Birth Certificate, pay an eight-dollar fee or something like that and be provided with a Certificate from Hawaii reflecting what they’d put on their application; nothing proven, no substantiation of information, just simply filling out a form with what was wanted to be stated, paying the document fee to the state and walking out with a “Birth Certificate” from the state of Hawaii.

NOTE: it was not “the Clerk” or any “Clerk” in or from Hawaii who issued the obtusely-phrased public statement regarding Barack Obama’s birth circumstances but, rather, Hawaii’s Public Health Director, as follows from a May 28, 2009 World News Daily article:

A circuit judge set a hearing after the election, but because of a growing controversy over the complete absence of documentation about Obama’s birth place – and therefore his constitutional eligibility to be president – Hawaiian Health Director Chiyome Fukino issued a statement regarding the issue:

“I, and Dr. Alvin Onaka have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

But as WND has reported, the statement left ambiguous the information in the birth certificate: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaiin birth, or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii? An online “Certification of Live Birth” posted by Obama doesn’t verify a Hawaiian birth, because it is a document the state has made available to children not born in the state, critics note.

Woman #2 said, now somewhat agitated:

but the document was published on the internet…

And I said:

THAT was NOT a Birth Certificate. That was a graphic file of an alleged “Certificate of Birth” which is not the same thing, not at all, as a Birth Certificate, nor was it even legitimate as a Certificate of Birth, what was published on the internet. It was a graphic file later deemed by several document experts to be nothing more than a graphic file of a probable fraudulent recreation or simulation of a Certificate of Birth, published first by a blog site — daily-kos (no link from me here) — that Obama eventually later copied and republished on his own website. Which was no proof of ANYthing except that it was a graphic file published on a blog site or two.

It’s disappointing when one has to provide a Senator’s office with basic information that they, their employees, ought to already know — being national security and identity issues experts, so-called.

However, I continued on with Woman #2 (contrary to the denial to hear this by Woman #1) about my objections to the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, expressing my displeasure and concerns as being, mostly, guided by the fact that Sotomayor is a Hispanic ethnic supremacist or otherwise, a racist, and added that I concluded that Barack Obama has cemented himself as a racist for nominating such (her, Sotomayor) and my conclusions about both I base upon information I’ve read that day and the day before from among Sotomayor’s own comment history and especially as to her associations (council member with La Raza, an ethnic-supremacy organization).

I continued — Woman #2 was at least not yelling nonsense at me but she was not pleased, obviously, with what I was expressing — I reiterated:

La Raza is an ethnic-supremacy organization and by the mere fact that Sotomayor is intrinsically involved with them reflects her own problematic ethical and intellectual character. And that’s not even including her obvious, patent ethnic, racial and sexist-gender bias, which is deplorable.

I continued:

Congress has no place even entertaining such groups (LaRaza, ethnic-supremacy organization, as example) or accepting counsel from them to any degree about anything and if they’re going to involve themselves with LaRaza, why, then, (this was said parenthetically), why, then, didn’t Congress hold counsel with other ethnic and racial supremacy groups such as, for example, I said, the American Nazi Party, the Black Panthers, the KKK? If LaRaza, then, why not the others, what’s the difference, it’s all the same garbage.

Feinstein’s office had no reasonable answer to that, nor to anything. They can and will not state to my satisfaction or even knowledge why it is that an ethnic-supremacy organization as is LaRaza is entertained and even funded by the federal government to the use and reference of mostly the Democratic Party, while other ethnic and racial supremacy organizations are targeted as “extremists.”

Worse, however, is that a candidate is being attempted upon the Supreme Court who has been intrinsically involved in this ethnic-supremacy organization, LaRaza, as is the case with Sonia Sotomayor. This entire association to a large degree should be more than enough to render Sotomayor as ethically inept in relationship with a Supreme Court appointment. If Sotomayor is acceptable, why not Joseph Goebbels?

That last remark was also simply an illustrative point I’m making: one ethnic supremacist is as offensive as another one.

I concluded my call with Woman #2 by identifying myself and my zipcode and thanking her for “listening to my concerns, so, good-bye.”

I ended the (second) call.

This is not representation before the federal government for me or any citizen who shares my concerns as I’ve expressed them in this two-part post (Part 1 and Part 2).

This isn’t representation, it’s utter denial and discouragement aimed at refusing citizen opinion, discouraging contact by citizens whose opinions run contrary to the Leftwing political presumptions and generalizations about extremely important issues shaping our daily lives and the future of this nation. This is a flippant dismissal of (and refusal to hear) citizen opinion when it may run counter to a political party (the Democratic Party) intents and objectives.

This isn’t representation, it’s suppression of citizen rights and participation in government.

It’s also a real-life example of just how limited in scope and effort the Left is in their presumption upon the nation (and me as a citizen and voter) in lieu of proliferating, as in my experience with this one call, utter lies upon the public. How many millions of other people have not had the wherewithal to confront these false statements — among others similar — and instead, accept the falsehoods as truth.

In conclusion:

What’s revealed is an utter disregard for their responsibility in public office, of service to citizens. The overwhelming atmosphere of my experience, as with previous attempts to communicate my opinions to Senators, is that I’m inconvenient, meaningless, someone in a servitude position to them and otherwise to be dismissed, my concerns to be discarded if not avoided. I have on earlier occasions telephoned other offices of both Senators Feinstein and Boxer (they have offices in various locations in the state and also in D.C. and I’ve attempted to communicate with several of the state offices as they are available and with the D.C. offices, also), and, the reactions are the same: a lot of “huffy” breathing sounds, tsks here and there, irritation and when they speak, they speak in a manner that communicates a very poor valuation by them of my concerns and my worth as a citizen.

Footnote: my telephone call experience to and with California Senator Barbara Boxer’s office about these very same issues will be shared here in the next few days.