7 votes

Critique Requested on Open Letter to Representative Vicky Hartzler

I plan on sending this to my rep as well as our local paper. Your critique is welcome and requested.

Open Letter to Representative Vicky Hartzler,

Reference: HR4310

It is with fear and trembling that I write you concerning your YAE vote on HR 4310 National Defense Authorization Act for 2013 To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for military activities of
the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths
for fiscal year 2013, and for other purposes.

Did you, or did you not take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States?

What rationale did you use to vote YEA on the referenced bill that allows for the indefinite detention by the military of US citizens in direct opposition to the 4th and 5th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States?

You had the opportunity to support the
SMITH-AMASH amendment, which in clear language assured the people of the United States that, indefinite detention does not apply to them. However, you voted NAY on that amendment. Why did you vote NAY?

I wrote you earlier this year to address my dismay at the rapid deterioration of the Bill of Rights due to the War on Terror and your YEA votes associated with that deterioration. I am starting to wonder exactly who are the terrorists? Why are the people of the United States being left vulnerable to the terror of indefinite military detention by their own government?

You are supposed to represent my best interests. I will not vote for you when your term is up. It is evident to me that you do not represent my certain unalienable natural born rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. I will be seeking a liberty minded candidate when your term is up, and will support and campaign for that individual and will speak out against you and the tyranny you represent.

Sincerely,




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Reply from Vicky Hartzler

Dear Cindy,

Thank you for contacting me about the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (FY 2013 NDAA). I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this annual bill that provides funding for our troops, resources for operations overseas, and equipment for military readiness.

The FY 2013 NDAA also addresses the detention and trial of terrorists. This NDAA, and the version passed in FY 2012, contain a provision concerning detainment that has been frequently misunderstood. The NDAA simply requires that the military be the custodian of individuals that are members or participants in al-Qaeda or its associated forces, and have been a part of their planning or actual attack against the United States or its allies. The required removal of such individuals from the criminal justice system specifically does not apply to American citizens. In other words, the right to trial for a U.S. Citizen entitled to such rights is protected in current law and reaffirmed in this bill.

It is important to understand that habeas corpus is essentially the right of an individual to challenge the legality of their imprisonment before a court. This is Constitutionally guaranteed to Americans under Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, which states "[t]he privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." Detainees suspected of terrorism are still entitled to due process protections, and have been guaranteed the right to challenge their detention by the United State Supreme Court in their ruling Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. The NDAA does not remove Constitutional guarantees.

Despite the express guarantees of the legislation and the protections of our Constitution, many have expressed concerns. Nothing is as serious as protecting American liberty. For that reason, several proposals were offered to change the NDAA this year, one the Right to Habeas Corpus Act, was included in the base bill during Committee consideration. The Right to Habeas Corpus Act, which I co-sponsored, reinforces our Constitutional protections without further endangering our national security. The bill firmly states that the NDAA does not deny the right to habeas corpus to any citizen detained in the United States.

During consideration on the House Floor, the NDAA was further strengthened by an Amendment offered by Congressmen Rigell, Landry, and Gohmert, which further states that no U.S. citizens' Constitutional rights will be denied in an Article III court. I supported this Amendment because I believe the best way to protect our rights is to clearly define and safeguard them. I am confident that detention powers of U.S. citizens are limited in the NDAA and that our freedoms are protected by this bill.

Some constituents have inquired about an additional Amendment, one offered by Congressmen Smith and Amash, which failed to pass. This Amendment would have effectively granted the full protections of our criminal legal system to foreign terrorists attacking the United States on our own soil. No foreign terrorist who comes to the United States to attack us should ever hear the words 'you have the right to remain silent.' I reject any attempts to reward foreign terrorists clever enough to get inside our borders with the same legal rights and protections as American citizens – the very people these terrorists seek to kill and injure. A central lesson we learned from the 9/11 attacks is that it is a mistake to treat al-Qaeda terrorists as mere criminals. Al-Qaeda is at war with the United States, and they are bent on destroying our freedoms.

I believe the FY 2013 NDAA contains sensible alternatives to the Smith and Amash Amendment that still protect our basic freedoms as Americans without extending protections to foreign terrorists. The NDAA protects our Constitutional rights, but does not extend them to the very people who have been fighting for a decade to tear our country apart.

Rest assured, I will continue working to provide what is needed to preserve liberty and our Armed Forces throughout my time in Congress. Both deserve nothing less than our full support. It is a privilege to be your voice in Congress.

With best regards, I remain,

Very truly yours,

Vicky Hartzler
Member of Congress
P.S. For the latest news about my current efforts to represent you in Washington, please subscribe to my weekly e-mail newsletter by visiting this website: http://hartzler.house.gov/contact-me/newsletter.

This message is sent from an Unattended Mailbox. Please do not reply to this e-mail.
Due to the large volume of e-mails my office receives on a daily basis and in order to better serve my constituents, I have established a contact form on my website. To access the form, please visit: http://hartzler.house.gov/contact-me. I do appreciate you taking the time to write to me and voice your concerns.

Rep Hartzler, who do you represent?

...Is the title the Editor gave my Open Letter to Rep. Hartzler, printed in the June 1, 2012, St. Clair County Courier. I sent the letter in Monday and it was printed Thursday!

I had a lady sit down next to me this evening at a wedding and she said, “I want to sit next to my heroine.” I thought her comment a little strange. By the end of our conversation, she brought up my letter to the editor. The updated letter,2013 NDAA Updated Letter to Vicky Hartzler, is posted in one of my comments below if you would like to check it out.

2013 NDAA Updated Letter to Vicky Hartzler

Open Letter to Representative Vicky Hartzler sent on May 28, 2012, and also sent to the St. Clair County Courier Letters to the Editor the same day.

Reference: HR4310

It is with fear and trembling that I write you concerning your YEA vote on HR 4310 National Defense Authorization Act for 2013: To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2013, and for other purposes.

Did you, or did you not take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States?

What rationale did you use to vote YEA on the referenced bill that allows for the indefinite detention by the military of US citizens in direct opposition to the 4th and 5th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States?

You had the opportunity to support the SMITH-AMASH amendment, which in clear language assured the people of the United States that, indefinite detention does not apply to them. However, you voted NAY on that amendment. Why did you vote NAY?

I wrote you earlier this year to address my dismay at the rapid deterioration of the Bill of Rights due to the War on Terror and your YEA votes associated with that deterioration. I am starting to wonder exactly who are the terrorists? Why are the people of the United States being left vulnerable to the terror of indefinite military detention by their own government?

According to our current governor, Jay Nixon, I, a 49 year old Baptist Pastor’s wife am a potential threat because I am a “white” Christian and have Ron Paul and prolife bumper stickers on my vehicles.*

You are supposed to represent my best interests. I will not vote for you when your term is up. It has become evident to me that you do not represent my certain unalienable natural born rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. I will be seeking a liberty minded candidate when your term is up, and will support and campaign for that individual and will speak out against you and the tyranny you represent.

Sincerely,

*Please Refer to Wikipedia
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Nixon ): “The Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) issued a report titled "The Modern Militia Movement" on February 20, 2009, informing the Missouri State Highway Patrol of several groups of people who could possibly be linked to domestic militia groups. According to the report, these groups included white Christians, supporters of third-party presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin, as well as opponents of gun control, illegal immigration, abortion, the Federal Reserve System, and the Internal Revenue Service. Following a joint letter from Paul, Barr, and Baldwin condemning the report, Nixon and the MIAC issued an apology concerning the report and stated that it will no longer be displayed on any official state websites.”

Competitive Analysis

Trust in Principles can be a power used in competitive analysis.

This letter for example is the second one according to the text in the letter and from a trust in principle the first answer to the first letter can help in the analysis of progress.

If the goal is Liberty, then it is one principled step toward that goal to find fellow Friends of Liberty, form connections (such as letter writing) and compare notes, such as discussion, and identify effective methods yet to be done in the power struggle against enemies of Liberty.

If you could hazard a guess based upon the first answer to the first letter as to a competitive analysis of the person on the other end of that connection would that other person on that other end of that connection be, as far as you can trust your principles, a friend of Liberty or a enemy of Liberty?

How can I help you, I ask myself, in return for your obvious effort to stand up to the enemies of Liberty?

How about a story?

My brother, the brother whose wife is volunteering to take care of a baby whose mother was an abuser of drugs and her babies, this family, living in Hinkley, stood up to an effort to ship raw sewage into their area, from Los Angeles, and have that raw sewage dumped out into the open desert near to his house, where the water is already contaminated by toxins leached down from a local Pacific Gas and Electric Plant.

The story was told to me that these fighters in the battle for Liberty ended up securing promises from enough council members on the board to reject the order to import raw sewage nearby their homes.

The story goes on to report how those council members lied, voted for, not against, as they had promised, the award of so many dollars to whomever was seeking that reward for dumping raw sewage nearby my brother's residence, with the well cared for newborn, and other friends of Liberty.

What do you expect to gain by writing this second letter?

The counterfeit government is antagonistic on purpose, also known as the Hegelian Dialectic (Thesis - Anti-Thesis = Synthesis) also known as Divide and Conquer.

I'm just trying to offer competitive analysis, based upon trust in principles.

The goal is?

Does the letter reach the goal?

What would happen if the response from the person on the other end of the letter is exactly what you demand to hear so as to satisfy all the reasons you have constructed in your mind for writing the letter?

Based upon the first response to the first letter will the response to the second letter be a confirmation of something, a reinforcement of something, or more contradiction, as far as you can expect at this point?

Things are the way the are now for reasons.

If things were not the way they are now because those reasons are no longer valid now, hypothetically, what would the MOB be doing when the MOB finds out that some of our number, here in this country, have sold out to criminals and therefore are criminals themselves?

In other words, what is the next step after this letter writing stuff, once this letter writing stuff accomplishes the intended goal?

The letter is well written as far as I can tell, but a lot of people claim that my writing is incomprehensible.

For what it is worth: If writing the letter and receiving answers helps you deal with your lack of trust in principles, or saying the same thing: helps you reinforce your trust in principles, then that effort, writing letters, is as good a thing to do for you, as is making sandwiches for the kids.

If there are other goals in mind, it may be a good idea to know exactly what are those goals, so as to remove all counter productive doubts concerning those goals.

Joe

Nothing

"What do you expect to gain by writing this second letter?"

I suppose nothing...I am writing letters. Companies, or individuals with powers therein are writing checks. G. Edward Griffen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7Utoxary2Q&feature=related . Video is nearly an hour and a half long so I am not saying listen to it. I am just saying I have an answer to your question now. (Good Video though on Individualism and the Role of Government)

Good link thanks

As I see it, there is nothing else I can do

This updated letter is the first letter I sent. I did not send the first one as I was waiting for comments. I think this morning's reply to The Granger (below) states my full intent and purpose which is to speak out instead of doing nothing and perhaps get my Representative's attention who is either:

1. unkowing
2. has been deceived
3. or is acting on purpose

as well as perhaps secure the attention of a small irate minority within my vicinity.

I am not going to lay down and do nothing. I expect to get a legalese letter back to which I will have to reply....but in the past have not...circular motion getting no where.

Please refer to The Granger below.

bear

FEAR is an acronym: False Evidense Appearing Real. Find out what is real without sacrificing yourself.

ANGER is fuel, like gasoline, so don't store it unsafely, spend it wisely to take you where you want to go in life.. Anger is a great motivator. many foks don't do anything until the are angry.

Now your letter: I would edit it to this:

I'm concerned about your YEA vote on HR 4310 National Defense Authorization Act for 2013.

What rationale did you use to vote YEA on the referenced bill that allows for the indefinite detention by the military of US citizens in direct opposition to the 4th and 5th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States? (I believe it's the Patriot Acts that provide the rational)

You had the opportunity to support the SMITH-AMASH amendment, which in clear language assured the people of the United States that, indefinite detention does not apply to them. However, you voted NAY on that amendment. Why did you vote NAY?

With Freedom, Liberty and Justice for all,

bear

FEAR

I have already sent the letter as written from my heart to Rep Hartzler and the Newspaper as well as posted here on the Daily Paul. I am not storing anger. I am serious and I am afraid. I am afraid of the repercussions of this public letter as well as the erosion of the Bill of Rights. I am afraid, and I want her to know it. My very own Representative does not even see the danger. I tremble inside knowing what may lie ahead if we do not have Liberty and Justice for all.

http://www.1828-dictionary.com/d/search/word,fear
"FEAR, n. [See the Verb.]
1. A painful emotion or passion excited by an expectation of evil, or the apprehension of impending danger. Fear expresses less apprehension than dread, and dread less than terror and fright. The force of this passion, beginning with the most moderate degree, may be thus expressed, fear, dread, terror, fright. Fear is accompanied with a desire to avoid or ward off the expected evil. Fear is an uneasiness of mind, upon the thought of future evil likely to befall us.
Fear is the passion of our nature which excites us to provide for our security, on the approach of evil."

Are you suggesting that I have taken false evidence to be real? What are you suggesting by "where I want to get in life?" Are you suggesting that I am storing anger like gasoline? Any anger has been peaceably channeled into a redress of grievance by letter to my representative.

I do appreciate your time and consideration you have taken to help me with my letter. I took your comments to heart. I spoke to my husband about this this morning and he encouraged me to leave the emotion in the letter because it is me.

Perhaps my emotional plea will cause some of the people of the United States to FEAR in accordance with the quoted definition of Fear. Perhaps a small irate minority will wake up and provide for their security so that we will have Liberty and Justice for all before it has vanished into thin air without a notice.

they are my tools that I was sharing with you

It will not hurt me if you chose to not employ the tools that work for me.

FEAR is an acronym, works to help me get through, or over, MY own FEAR. and as for anger.. I learned about "building a machine within myself to dispel anger.

Both those tools work for me, as I don't fear much, and I rarely get angry. I try to not react to FEAR and anger.. I try to find what is false and build a method to get past it.

I have taken allot of classes in social work, Chaplin, Hospice, and found that government and the employees, have little respect for peoples emotions. On a personal level they may, but at work, they don't. My experience taught, rather trained, me to leave my emotions for those who actually care about them. Government doesn't give a damn. God Bless you to have a husband that does!!!!

PEACE and good will.. May you get your answer soon and be happy, and THANK YOU for writting a letter and giving a damn! BRAVO!

Thank you for your kind reply

Thank you for your kind reply and encouragement. Who stole the definition of fear to make an acronym?

For me

I found the acronym for FEAR in a book by Julia Cameron called, "The Artists Way", a powerful book to help artists break through blocks, and the people who block them, including themselves.

False Evidense Appearing Real

Again, THANK YOU for writing a letter and making a difference. I'm looking forward to learning the response you receive!

False Evidence Appearing Real

How does this acronym work when face-to face with a grizzly in the wild?

Perhaps in the message of her book, Ms. Cameron distinguishes between whether the danger is true or falsely perceived?

I can see how false fear could work to someone's detriment. However, fear correctly placed is invaluable to self-preservation.

I'll be sure to share the reply I receive. Thank you for your encouragement & have a great week!

Well done

If you get an answer (not a counterfeit answer) it will be precious. Please consider following up in that event.

Joe

Thank you

I go from being angry to brave to scared. I hope that I have not been to bold. The reply below this edits the emotion out of the letter. Perhaps that would be wise?

I am also considering numbering my questions. The replies to my last round of letters, which was my first, did not have all the points addressed. And like you mentioned, the answers, I felt, were counterfeit...

I will follow up. With Rep Hartzler it took about a month to get a reply.

What is the process, or goal?

Taking out the emotion is done for what reason?

Please excuse my interrogation. My aim is to understand the thinking.

If you are on a conveyor belt, where I traveled on a similar belt already, and as you document your progress, as I've documented my progress, other people can see parallel thoughts and parallel actions.

The concept is to teach the next conveyor belt travelers past experience, which may or may not have any relevance to future conveyor belt travelers.

If the goal in mind is to elect a representative of special interests, yours, then it may be the same conveyor belt but those doing the electing may be on a different conveyor belt.

If the idea is to find honest people, elect them, and have them dismantle the conveyor belt so as to do honest things, noble things, moral things, such as defend Liberty, then being on the conveyor belt that reaches that goal may be a very important experience worth its weight in gold.

My use of language with illustrations can be less colorful and much more precise in identifying the relevant parts of that image of the conveyor belt.

I don't want to discourage anyone from using the conveyor belt, learning is a process that must be accomplished individually. There are no short cuts?

Joe

Goals

I suppose taking out the emotion would be more business-like and less threatening to the Rep. Maybe keep me off of some list.

My goal with this letter is to get the attention of this Rep and maybe make her think better or twice to uphold the constitution whereby the liberty interests of all Americans are met.

No special interests...I imagine that would mean dismantling alot, including Amend XIV. Ron Paul wants to rescind all the unconstitutional executive orders should we be blessed by his election. That would be a good start as well.

So the end goal would be "to find honest people, elect them, and have them dismantle the conveyor belt so as to do honest things, noble things, moral things, such as defend Liberty"

Thanks

But to be clear, that is a special interest to all human beings with few exceptions.

Raise your hands if you are against the special interest of Liberty?

Some things defy corruption and counterfeit?

Joe

I would edit to this:

I write you concerning your YAE vote on HR 4310 National Defense Authorization Act for 2013 To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for military activities of
the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths
for fiscal year 2013, and for other purposes.

Did you, or did you not take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States?

What rationale did you use to vote YEA on the referenced bill that allows for the indefinite detention by the military of US citizens in direct opposition to the 4th and 5th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States?

You had the opportunity to support the
SMITH-AMASH amendment, which in clear language assured the people of the United States that, indefinite detention does not apply to them. However, you voted NAY on that amendment. Why did you vote NAY?

Input Appreciated!

Thank you very much for your comments. I appreciate the time you have taken to give me your input. I especially like the way your last paragraph reads.

I appreciate your service

Thank you for serving our country. It is with high hopes that I pray Godspeed for Dr. Paul.