#Dear Members of Congress | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

on-my-vigilante-sht · 1 year

Text

I Can’t Leave

Aaron Hotchner x Reader

Summary: When the reader is forced into hiding, she’s desperate to inform her fiancé and his son

Warnings: canon level violence, talk of domestic terrorism, some angst, guns

Word Count: 3.2k

Masterlist

“Here you go,” I said, putting a glass of whisky in front of my father. I took my seat across from him, raising my glass. “To the Speaker of the House, part three.”

He smiled, touching his glass to mine before taking drink. “Thank you, dear. So how’s work?”

“It’s good. I mean, as good as hunting down predators and murderers can be,” I sighed. “But it’s good, I feel like I’m doing some good in the world.” I looked up to find my father’s expression falling. “What?”

“I just- uh… well it’s not that I want you to be unhappy but this next thing would be easier if you hated your job,” he chuckled awkwardly. Confused and nervous I urged him to go on. “Well there are some bad people after us, Y/N.”

“Dad, you don’t need to dumb it down. I’m an FBI agent, I take down bad people all the time. What’s going on?”

“Some extremists are after our family. Y/N, they sent death threats… about you specifically,” he said as gently as possible.

“Okay, so? I mean yeah, it’s strange that they were sent about me in relation to you but they’ve sent them to mom. I get them on my own from people we’ve locked up.”

“They suspect that the extremists are working with some members of Congress in the opposing party. Which can be incredibly dangerous for you.”

“So what? You want my team to investigate? I can hang back on this one if that’s what you’re worried about.”

“Well I’m glad you’re willing to hang back because… you need to go into hiding.”

I only stared at him, not believing what he was asking. “Did you seriously just ask me to go into hiding?”

“Y/N-”

“No, absolutely not,” I refused. “Dad, I’m an FBI agent. If anyone can protect themselves it’s me.”

“This is serious. I’ve talked to people in Homeland Security, people way above you and your team and they recommended you go into hiding.”

“What about you?” I was visibly upset now. “Are you hiding?”

“I can’t. The houses are already divided and each party is getting more radical. I can’t just leave, especially when I was just reelected.”

“So what makes you think I can just leave? Why can’t I just have body guards?”

“Because your job won’t allow that. I know you’ll run away from them with no regard for your own safety the second a — what is it you call them? Unsub? — when an unsub runs away. Besides, they said you won’t be safe unless everyone thinks you’re dead.”

“Excuse me?” I was angry now. “What could possibly be going on that Homeland Security thinks I need to be dead? Oh my god,” I said suddenly, realizing what my father was asking. “Can I at least tell my team that this is fake?”

He shook his head regretfully. “I’m sorry. Homeland Security wants as few people to know as possible.”

“Can I at least tell Aaron and Jack?” Tears were pricking my eyes now as he shook his head no. “Dad, he’s my fiancé,” I was begging now. “He has a son. Jack is basically my son. He already lost his mother to a bad guy. I can’t leave them. He can’t lose two mother figures.”

“That’s exactly why you need to be protected. So you can be a mother to him again.”

“Can’t you see this will do irreparable damage? Aaron won’t let me back into his life after I knowingly hurt him and his son in a way they’ve already been hurt. You want me to go into hiding? Fine but please let me tell Aaron.”

“I’m sorry dear, my hands are tied. Your death is already being orchestrated now. Your car will be crashed in about 10 minutes.”

My eyes widened as rage filled me. “I don’t even get to see anyone one last time?” I covered my face in frustration. I needed to calm down if I was going to think of a way to communicate with Aaron. “Fine but just let me do one last thing.”

My father nodded eagerly. “I’ll try my best to fulfill that.”

“Part of the reason I came over was to get my old Hot Wheels. I was going to bring them back for Jack. Can they say they were found in the trunk and you said to take them to Jack because I was delivering them?”

He thought for a moment. “I don’t see why not. I’ll ask the agents posing as officers to bring them.”

“Thank you,” I breathed. “I just didn’t want to leave Jack with nothing, you know? I’ll grab them,” I said, heading into my old room. Immediately grabbing a post-it note and a pen.

I’m alive. Tell no one. Love you - Y/N

I folded it up as tight as possible and stuffed it inside the door of a ‘65 Mustang I had once broken the door off of when I was a kid. I then replaced the broken door, which only fell off when you rolled it around, before tossing it into the box with the others.

Aaron had been cooking lunch on one of his few days off, excited for Y/N to return home so they could have some alone time when he heard a knock on the door. Cautiously he grabbed his gun before creeping towards the door silently. Checking the peep hole he spotted two cops. Frowning, he put his gun down behind the door before opening it. Before he could say anything the officer spoke. “Aaron Hotchner?”

“Yes?” he answered hesitantly.

“We’re very sorry to inform you but your fiancée, Y/N L/N, has passed.” Every ounce of hurt Aaron had ever felt hit him all at once. All the shots, stabs, and the countless punches Aaron had ever felt. This hurt more than Haley, which at the time he had thought would be the worst pain of his life. He didn’t even hear what the cops were saying until they mentioned his son. “We found these. We spoke to Y/N’s father and he said she was bringing them back here to Jack.”

Aaron stared down at the box that was filled near to the brim with Hot Wheels. The same toys that Jack and her had been so excited to play with together. He took the box before quietly shutting the door, wanting to be alone. Setting the box on the kitchen counter he leaned up against it, letting his agony consume him. He couldn’t even make tears fall as empty sobs wracked his body. Aaron was consumed with anger, hurt, sadness, any and every emotion associated with grief. But most of all he was trying to figure out what to say to his son. How could he tell Jack that yet another mother figure was taken from him?

Unable to handle anything he texted his sister-in-law that he had to go into work and asked her to take Jack for the night.

Aaron completely lost the rest of the day. He felt like he was in some sort of haze. He only “woke up” when he started going through Y/N’s Hot Wheels collection, desperate to hold onto her. When he stumbled upon the ‘65 Mustang he was consumed with memories. The first time he had met her parents she had showed him her old room including this exact car. She told him that she used to pass secret messages with her friends in this car. Curiously he fiddled with the door until it popped out. Peering inside he was surprised to see a note stuffed into it. Anxious about what he’d find he pulled out that note that had been very tightly folded.

Without even reading it yet Aaron already felt emotion consume him at the sight of her handwriting. Pushing through he read the note.

I’m alive. Tell no one. Love you - Y/N

He read and reread the short note trying to convince the whisper in his mind that it was in fact for him and Jack. Y/N’s father’s reelection had caused some sense of insurrection in radical groups and he had heard rumors of death threats against her family but they had received death threats in the past. They must have gotten worse and more targeted for Homeland Security to force her into hiding. He also knew she’d never fake her death without telling him and Jack and judging by the nature of the note being smuggled in she hadn’t known about the plan.

While he was relieved to know she was alive but afraid for her safety. If a threat was bad enough to force her underground it must be serious. And he still had to deal with the worst part of it… telling the team and explaining the situation to Jack.

He texted his sister-in-law again that their jet was delayed so he could take Jack for the night and bring him to school tomorrow. Just 15 minutes later Jack was back in his home.

After his son got settled in, Aaron went into his room. “Dad, where’s Y/N?”

Aaron hesitated for a second. “Um yeah, about that…” he had no clue how his young son would handle the news. Especially after Haley had already been killed. “Well first of all, Y/N is okay. She’s safe with a bunch of people to protect her but she’s going to be gone for a little while. Some people are angry at her father and well… they’re threatening to hurt her so some very powerful people think it’s best that she hide for a little while until she’s safe.”

“Is it like the people who hurt mom?” Jack asked with innocent eyes.

That hit Aaron like a bullet. He wasn’t quite sure how to handle it. “Sort of. They want to hurt her family but this is about something bigger than her family or our family.” He didn’t really think it’d be a great idea for him to explain the intricacies of domestic terrorism to his son right before bed. “But you can’t tell anyone about this, understood? We weren’t even supposed to know she’s alive. Not the team, not your aunt, not your teacher, not your friends. It could be really dangerous for Y/N.”

Jack nodded. “Okay dad. When will Y/N come back? In time for the wedding?”

Aaron also didn’t need the reminder that your wedding was supposed to be in two months. “I don’t know but I hope so buddy. I hope so…”

The next day at work Aaron was trying to work up the nerve to speak to everyone about Y/N’s death. There was a case about some women who looked like her and he couldn’t help but wonder if maybe this was connected but he knew he wouldn’t be able to share his theories with anyone.

As everyone filtered in they were all wondering about Y/N. “Hey, Hotch, where’s Y/N?” Morgan asked.

Aaron sighed heavily. “About that… I learned yesterday that um…” this was difficult to say even though he knew it was a lie, “Y/N was killed in a car crash yesterday. I thought this news needed to be said in person rather than over the phone.”

The room was left in shocked silence for a moment until Derek spoke. “Hotch I’m so sorry.” Everyone was keenly aware that this would be the second woman their Unit Chief loved that died.

“It’s not just my loss. It’s all our losses,” he deflected, the always altruist boss.

“How’s Jack handling it?” JJ asked.

“He’s not ready to talk about it so I’m giving him some time. I can’t imagine it’s easy losing another mother figure.”

“How are you handling it?” Rossi asked.

That was a question he didn’t know how to answer. Truthfully he wasn’t okay even though he knew his fiancée was alive because he knew dangerous people were after her. “I can’t really afford to think about it right now. Wheels up in 15, we’ll debrief on the plane.”

1 Year Later

Even though his fiancée was still alive he was still reeling from her loss. It was hard having absolutely no contact and no updates about the status of her or her case.

He was filling out case reports when he heard a knock at his door. “Come in,” muttered not looking up. After not hearing anything in response he looked up to find Y/N’s father, the Head of the Secret Service, Mark Sullivan, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge. “Sirs, how can I help you.”

“This is about my daughter,” the Congressman began. “She’s alive.” Aaron wasn’t sure if he should reveal that he knew that or not.

“You already knew,” the Sullivan observed.

“Yes, I did. Y/N sent me a note,” he admitted.

“Has she had any contact with you since?” Ridge asked.

“She hasn’t. What’s happened?” he knew they wouldn’t come to him at work unless they needed profilers.

“It’s been a year since Y/N went underground. She’s been bouncing around various countries and they’ve somehow managed to follow her without us making any headway on the investigation. And we’d like the BAU to help us track these terrorists down.”

“I’ll have my team on it. Where are we going?”

“Brazil.”

In less than an hour the entire team was on the plane with Garcia calling in. “Why are we headed to Brazil? We don’t have jurisdiction there,” Reid asked.

“There’s a very high profile victim being hunted by a small domestic terrorist organization. The Brazilian government wants them out and they’ve given us full jurisdiction over any US citizens there as well as the ability to question any Brazilian citizens as long as they’re arrested by Brazilian officers or agents.”

“So who’s the vic?” Emily asked.

“It’s Y/N,” Aaron admitted. It felt like he had just released a breath he had been holding for a year. “She didn’t actually die in a car crash, she had been in hiding.”

The plane erupted into angry yells and confused conversations. “Hotch how could you not tell us?” Derek asked angrily.

“I know you’re all confused and angry, so was I. I wasn’t even supposed to know, Y/N had to smuggle me a note. As far as I know she never knew she was being forced into hiding until it was too late for her to say goodbye.”

“Still you should’ve told us,” Derek seethed angrily. He felt lied to by his boss and one of his closest friends. Both of which were always supposed to have his back.

“Enough, Derek,” Aaron said sternly, silencing the plane. “If you want to be angry be angry at the terrorists threatening her but I was just trying to protect her and she was trying to protect Jack and I. Like it or not this is bigger than you and I will remove you from this case if you can’t keep your emotions in check. Got it?” Derek begrudgingly agreed and soon enough the team was discussing theories.

It took a week full of interviews, analysis, dead ends, hundreds of suspects, and more fake names than they could count but the BAU finally tracked down the terrorist organization that sent one of their agents running. And along with with their investigation they had found where their teammate was hiding. Every member of the BAU wanted to rush over but they couldn’t afford to send the terrorists underground again so they waited for them to make a move.

As soon as the BAU got word that terrorists were moving in on Y/N’s location they headed over. Aaron’s heart was beating out of his chest the entire ride over. Terrified that they wouldn’t reach his fiancée in time.

They pulled up to the small cottage just as Aaron spotted some men dressed in camouflage creeping around the house. Aaron barely put the car in park, too anxious to get to his love. “FBI! Put down your weapons and step away from the house,” he ordered as the rest of the team and several other soldiers stormed out of the cars.

Seeing as they were outnumbered several of the terrorists put their guns down and raised their hands in surrender. The same couldn’t be said for the mercenaries at the back of the cottage as he heard a window shatter and several yells from inside. Immediately going for the door he had to knock it down, stumbling inside to find a stand-off. Y/N was stood half shielded by two guards with her gun raised at a few terrorists. The guards he recognized as Secret Service also had their guns raised and they were yelling.

“It’s over,” Aaron announced as soldiers appeared into the window, drastically outnumbering the two men who had their guns aimed at Y/N. One took a shot and he was instantly put down by at least five bullets aimed at him. The partner seemed to have been accidentally been hit because he went down with a yell. But Aaron didn’t care about him, he was concerned about Y/N. He looked over, finding her tending to one of her guards who had suffered a bullet to the arm. Her hands were covered in blood and Aaron wasn’t thinking rationally as he reached her. “Are you okay?” he asked, gently grasping her shoulders.

“Yeah,” she agreed. “Can you call an ambulance?”

“Sure,” he agreed hurriedly. “This is Agent Hotchner, we have two suspects down and a wounded agent. Send medical assistance immediately.” By now the other guard and some soldiers who had medical training were attending to the wounded agent and pushing Y/N away. “Y/N,” he called, dragging her attention away from the guard.

She looked at him, really looked at him for the first time in a year. “Aaron,” she began to cry, throwing herself at him. “I’m sorry, I’m so sorry for leaving,” she sobbed against his bulletproof vest.

“Hey, no, it’s okay,” he hushed, squeezing her tightly and stoking his fingers through her hair. “I know you didn’t want this. Thank you for sending that note to Jack and I.”

“I couldn’t bear the thought of either of you losing someone again,” she explained. “I love you so much.”

“I love you too.”

Masterlist

#aaron hotchner #hotch #aaron hotchner x reader #hotch x reader #criminal minds #criminal minds x reader

407 notes · View notes

odinsblog · 5 months

Text

Dear President Shafik,

We write as Jewish faculty of Columbia and Barnard in anticipation of your appearance before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on April 17, where you are expected to answer questions about antisemitism on campus. Based on the committee’s previous hearings, we are gravely concerned about the false narratives that frame these proceedings to entrap witnesses. We urge you, as the University president, to defend our shared commitment to universities as sites of learning, critical thinking, and knowledge production against this new McCarthyism.

Rather than being concerned with the safety and well-being of Jewish students on campuses, the committee is leveraging antisemitism in a wider effort to caricature and demonize universities as hotbeds of “woke indoctrination.” Its opportunistic use of antisemitism in a moment of crisis is expanding and strengthening longstanding efforts to undermine educational institutions. After launching attacks on public universities from Florida to South Dakota, this campaign has opened a new front against private institutions.

The prospect of Rep. Elise Stefanik, a member of congress with a history of espousing white nationalist politics, calling university presidents to account for alleged antisemitism on their campuses reveals these proceedings as disingenuous political theater.

In the face of these coordinated attacks on higher education, universities must insist on their freedom to research and teach inconvenient truths. This includes historical injustices and the contemporary structures that perpetuate them, regardless of whether these facts are politically inexpedient for certain interest groups.

To be sure, antisemitism is a grave concern that should be scrutinized alongside racism, sexism, Islamophobia, homophobia, and all other forms of hate. These hateful ideologies exist everywhere and we would be ignorant to believe that they don’t exist at Columbia. When antisemitism rears its head, it should be swiftly denounced, and its perpetrators held to account. However, it is absurd to claim that antisemitism—“discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews,” according to the Jerusalem Declaration’s definition—is rampant on Columbia’s campus. To argue that taking a stand against Israel’s war on Gaza is antisemitic is to pervert the meaning of the term.

Labeling pro-Palestinian expression as anti-Jewish hate speech requires a dangerous and false conflation of Zionism with Jewishness, of political ideology with identity. This conflation betrays a woefully inaccurate understanding—and disingenuous misrepresentation—of Jewish history, identity, and politics. It erases more than a century of debates among Jews themselves about the nature of a Jewish homeland in the biblical Land of Israel, including Israel’s status as a Jewish nation-state. It dismisses the experiences of the post-Zionist, non-Zionist, and anti-Zionist Jews who work, study, and live on our campus.

The political passions that arise from conflict in the Middle East may deeply unsettle students, faculty, and staff with opposing views. But feeling uncomfortable is not the same thing as being threatened or discriminated against. Free expression, which is fundamental to both academic inquiry and democracy, necessarily entails exposure to views that may be deeply disconcerting. We can support students who feel real and valid discomfort toward protests advocating for Palestinian liberation while also stating clearly and firmly that this discomfort is not an issue of safety.

As faculty, we dedicate ourselves and our classrooms to keeping every student safe from real harm, harassment, and discrimination. We commit to helping them learn to experience discomfort and even confrontation as part of the process of skill and knowledge acquisition—and to help them realize that ideas we oppose can be contested without being suppressed.

By exacting discipline, inviting police presence, and broadly surveilling its students for minor offenses, the University is betraying its educational mission. It has pursued drastic measures against students, including disciplinary proceedings and probation, for infractions like allegedly attending an unauthorized protest, or moving barricades to drape a flag on a statue. Real harassment and physical intimidation and violence on campus must be confronted seriously and its perpetrators held accountable. At the same time, the University should refrain whenever possible from using discipline and surveillance as means of addressing less serious harms, and should never use punitive measures to address conflicts over ideas and the feelings of discomfort that result. Where the University once embraced and defended students’ political expression, it now suppresses and disciplines it.

The University’s recent policies represent a dramatic change from historical practice, and the consequences are ruinous to our community and its principles. In the past, Columbia has periodically confronted attacks against pro-Palestinian speech, ranging from the vile slanders against Professor Edward Said to the reckless accusations from the David Project. But where for decades the University stood firm against smear campaigns targeting its professors, it has now voluntarily accepted the job of censoring its faculty in and outside the classroom.

Columbia’s commitment to free inquiry and robust disagreement is what makes it a world-class institution. Limiting academic freedom when it comes to questions of Israel and Palestine paves the way for limitations on other contested topics, from climate science to the history of slavery. What’s more, students must have the freedom to dissent, to make mistakes, to offend without intent, and to learn to repair harm done if necessary. Free expression is not only crucial to student development and education outside the classroom; the tradition of student protest has also played a vital role in American democracy. Columbia should be proud of having participated in nationwide student organizing that helped secure civil rights and reproductive rights and helped bring an end to the Vietnam War and apartheid in South Africa.

We express our support for the University and for higher education against the attacks likely to be leveled against them at the upcoming congressional hearing. We object to the weaponization of antisemitism. And we advocate for a campus where all students, Jewish, Palestinian, and all others, can learn and thrive in a climate of open, honest inquiry and rigorous debate.

Many members of our University community share our perspective, but they have not yet been heard. Columbia students, staff, alumni, and faculty can sign here to show your support for this letter’s message.

—Jewish faculty reject the weaponization of antisemitism

The 23 authors of this letter are Jewish faculty members of Barnard College and Columbia University. This letter derives from a much longer one by these same 23 faculty sent to President Shafik on April 5.

87 notes · View notes

soon-palestine · 5 months

Text

JVL Introduction

The Presidents of three leading US universities were falsely accused of condoning anti-Semitism on their campuses in a highly partisan ambush in front of US congressional hearing in December. Now the Columbia President, Minouche Shafik, is being summoned and 23 of her Jewish faculty are urging her not to give in to attempts to equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism and to defend academic freedom at her campus.

They strongly contest assertions that antisemitism is rife at Columbia. They accept that many students are unsettled by the intensity of debate around the Gaza catastrophe but being uncomfortable is far from being discriminated against or threatened.

They deplore the recent actions of the University’s management to use disciplinary processes to clamp down on protest and see this as an abandonment of Columbia’s record of confronting smears and slanders levelled against staff and students and committing to free inquiry and robust disagreement.

This article was originally published by Columbia Spectator on Wed 10 Apr 2024. Read the original here. Jewish faculty reject the weaponization of antisemitism

by 23 Columbia and Barnard faculty, Columbia Spectator

Dear President Shafik,

Sincerely,Debbie Becher, Barnard College Helen Benedict, Columbia Journalism School Susan Bernofsky, School of the Arts Elizabeth Bernstein, Barnard College Nina Berman, Columbia Journalism School Amy Chazkel, Faculty of Arts & Sciences Yinon Cohen, Faculty of Arts & Sciences Nora Gross, Barnard College Keith Gessen, Columbia Journalism School Jack Halberstam, Faculty of Arts & Sciences Sarah Haley, Faculty of Arts & Sciences Michael Harris, Faculty of Arts & Sciences Jennifer S. Hirsch, Mailman School of Public Health Marianne Hirsch, Faculty of Arts & Sciences (Emerita) Joseph A. Howley, Faculty of Arts & Sciences David Lurie, Faculty of Arts & Sciences Nara Milanich, Barnard College D. Max Moerman, Barnard College Manijeh Moradian, Barnard College Sheldon Pollock, Faculty of Arts & Sciences (Emeritus) Bruce Robbins, Faculty of Arts & Sciences James Schamus, School of the Arts Alisa Solomon, Columbia Journalism School

#palestine #gaza #free palestine #columbia university

64 notes · View notes

todaysdocument · 6 months

Text

Letter from George Washington to Representative James Madison Regarding Plans for His Arrival in New York City for the Inauguration

Record Group 59: General Records of the Department of StateSeries: Letters ReceivedFile Unit: January THRU June 1789

Mount Vernon Mach 30th 1789 67

My dear Sir,

I have been favored with your letter of the 19th by which it appears that a quoram of Congress was hardly to be expected before the beginning of the [next?] week. As this delay must be very irksome to the attending members, & every days continuance of it (before the government is in [illegible] be more sensibly felt. I am resolved, none shall proceed from me that can not be avoided (after notice of the election is announced)and therefore I take the liberty of requesting the favor of you to engage a lodging for me previous to my arrival. Mr Lear who has already lived with me three years as a private secretary, will accompany, preceed me in the stage - and (7) Colo Humphreys, I presume, will be of my Party & Mr Lear. On the subject of those lodgings, I will be frankly declare to you that I mean to go into none, but hired ones. If these cannot be had, tolerably convenient (then I shall not be nice about them). I would take Rooms in the most decent Tavern, till such time as house <s>shall</s> can be provided for the reception more permanent of the President. I have already declined a very polite & pressing invitation from the Governor, to lodge at his house till a place <s>can</s> could be prepared for me; after which should any other offers of a similar nature be made & then could be no propensity in my acceptance of it. But as you <s>know</s> are fully acquainted with my sentiments on this lead, I shall only add that as I mean to avoid private families on the one hand so on another I am not anxious to be placed, <u>early</u> in a situation for entertaining; for which reason private lodgings till I can feel the way a little would not only be more agreeable to my own wishes, but, more consistent, possibly with the principles of sound policy. For as it is my intention to conform to the public desire & expectation, with respect to the <s>proper</s> style [illegible] for the President to live in, it might be then to know what those are before he enters upon it. After all something may perhaps have been decided upon before this shall have reached you that may make the request negatory. If otherwise I will only in one word say that my wish is to be placed in an independent situation <s>with a view to what</s> for the purpose I have next.

The Hon[ora]blee Jas. [James] Madison

30th Mar. 1789

#archivesgov #March 30 #1789 #george washington #james madison #us president #18th century

55 notes · View notes

pub-lius · 8 months

Note

Hello, recently you answered an ask about how Hamilton reacted to the Hamilton-Madison fallout, and one of the things you said was "These men were very crucial figures in American law, which shows that, unlike men like Jefferson, he [Hamilton] was very selective in who he chose to associate with when it came to his work."

Was Jefferson particularly indiscriminate when it came to finding collaborators, or was Hamilton particularly selective (or a little bit of both)? Could you provide some examples for this contrast?

hello first of all, the structure of your ask had me literally salivating screaming crying on the floor because this is such a wonderfully structured ask and it is the perfect formula to get an in depth response bc there’s so much i could talk about here. i love you. anyway-

Let's break this down to each dude. First, the worst dude, Thomas "freak" Jefferson. Jefferson's political career began when he joined the House of Burgesses, which, as the name implies, is a house of Burges (its a legislature). His first major publication was A Summary View of the Rights of British America, a Revolutionary work of literature that called King George III a cunt in formal language, was done entirely by himself, and it was rejected by his contemporaries for being too radical. This gained him a reputation for being a blue haired liberal.

Source: The American Heritage Book of the Presidents and Famous Americans (book 2)

Jefferson would go on to write The Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms with John Dickinson in July, 1775 to, yk, explain the causes and necessity of taking up arms against the British. John Dickinson was a very well known politician, being a member of the Continental Congress and one of the elite group of Americans who had the chance to be educated in England. Both Jefferson and Dickinson were known revolutionary voices, despite the differences of opinion that would arise between them in the following debate on independence. They were also both members of the Second Continental Congress.

Source: American Battlefield Trust, Delaware Historical and Cultural Affairs

The question of why Jefferson worked with Dickinson is most relevant to this ask. And the answer, in my opinion, is just because it was convenient. The Continental Congress was the best- "best"- men of each state coming together to represent their respective homelands. Dickinson and Jefferson most likely had conversations about the subject they would go on to write about, and decided to write it down and publish it for public benefit. We'll come back to this later.

Okay, now the elephant in the room: the Declaration of Independence. I find this subject so boring so bear with me. Jefferson was chosen by the Declaration committee (consisting of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman) as he was already known as a Revolutionary writer and one of the best educated of them. He wrote the original draft on his own- well, technically- and then it was edited by the rest of the committee, and then by the rest of Congress.

Oh, but Henry! You said technically! Why? Well, dear reader, I'll tell you, be patient, jesus fucking christ. Jefferson highly based the Declaration off of Richard Henry Lee's resolution calling for independence in the Continental Congress, but mainly off of the philosophies of John Locke. That famous phrase we all know was almost word-for-word the writings of John Locke. I even once wrote an essay on how Jefferson essentially plagiarized John Locke in my sophomore government class.

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness..." -Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

Source: my pocket Declaration/Constitution LMAO i really busted that out like an absolute nerd

"All mankind... being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions." -John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, 1690

Source: brainyquote.com and a suspicious PDF of excerpts that I narrowly avoided a virus while accidentally downloading

I think that the Declaration is a pretty good example of how Jefferson, and 18th century American government, usually performed. This famous document was created by committee, and through education on 17th century philosophy. There were not multiple men working on the original draft of this, and the men who did work on it were not selected by Jefferson, and his major works are almost entirely attributed to him alone. He'd go onto write other historical documents such as Notes on Virginia and Anas (which are a more interesting and complex document) in this same form.

Source: Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow, Founders Online

He did consult with other men when it came to information and intelligence on political enemies later in his political career. These men were mostly hyper-relevant Democratic Republicans, who tended to be rich, southern landowners (aka slaveholders), at least those who associated with Jefferson. The most iconic of these were, of course, James Madison and James Monroe. Jefferson frequently consulted them, and Monroe (allegedly) gave Jefferson copies of the documents Hamilton showed to him to prove he had not been speculating with James Reynolds, but had actually been sleeping with his wife.

Source: Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow, The Three Lives of James Madison by Noah Feldman

To summarize, Jefferson was not necessarily indiscriminate with who he associated with, and he didn't even really work that much with other men on his major writings. However, we can see a definitive pattern of Jefferson only really associating with other members of his class, neither below or above him. And this just very simply makes sense. Jefferson, as did the rest of the 18th century, believed that there shouldn't be any cross contamination between the social classes. He also believed that the only really smart people were in his class. And he wasn't aggressive about this, it's just a passive belief due to the way society was structured.

UNTIL!

Alexander Hamilton was literally opposite to Jefferson in every sociocultural way. In Jefferson's eyes he was an ambitious upstart who rose through the ranks, defying the social order that kept society from collapsing.

You'll hear a lot of people say that in forming America, the Founding Fathers had undone this rigid social class system, but that really isn't true. The class system in Europe was entirely different than the one that developed in America, but it still definitely existed in some form. Without the court system, America formed a loose sort of aristocracy that depended on land ownership and/or success in the mercantile business. In Europe, you'd see members of the clergy having their own class, but in America, it was entirely based on wealth, and less on birthright, but if your parents were not wealthy, the only way you could become wealthy was by getting in on some kind of get-rich-quick scheme, like owning a plantation or being a lawyer.

What made Hamilton different from this was that Jefferson, and other enemies, could literally watch in real time as he rose through the ranks. He could see him go from a captain in the artillery, known for his bravery in the New York campaign (someone who would eventually be forgotten), to Washington's aide-de-camp (okay... but he'll probably still fade into obscurity), to a member of the Confederation Congress (oh! well, okay, but that doesn't particularly mean anything, this is probably the highest he'll get), to the only New York delegate in town for the Constitutional Convention and the only person from New York to sign it (well that'll get him in the history books...), to the FIRST SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY OF THE NEW US GOVERNMENT (WHAT THE FUCK HOW DID HE FUCKING DO THAT WHAT THE FUCK GET HIM OUT).

Source: Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow

So, let's talk about Hamilton's political career now, specifically through tracking his writings.

One thing the musical gets right is that Hamilton DEFINITELY utilized anonymous pamphlet publishing throughout his political career. And these are some of my favorite documents ever. From A Farmer Refuted to The Monitor to The Publius Letters to Pacificus, Hamilton absolute served irreparable cunt in all of these writings, and there are more than what I've listed, I just haven't finished my chronological list of Hamilton's published works.

"I'll use the press, / I'll write under a pseudonym, you'll see what I can do to him [Jefferson]." -Alexander Hamilton in Hamilton by Lin Manuel Miranda

Source: Blumenthal Performing Arts

All of these anonymous publishings had some things in common that I've used to categorize them:

A target (usually a person he didn't like and thought was immoral)

A core lesson (typically a political stance he was taking at the time that he wanted to defend and garner support for publically)

A newspaper publisher that was symbolic or strategically important in some way (either an enemy newspaper, and up-and-coming newspaper, an old friend's newspaper, etc.)

multiple editions

2-3 coauthors/beta readers

Almost each one of these publications follows this pattern, though number 5 tends to be the least common among all of them. But, since his college days, Hamilton would ask for his friends' input on his writings (whether or not he accepted their advice is not confirmed). Before he would give his college-era speeches, he would consult with the small debate group he and his friends made before he gave those speeches. When he was writing The Publius Letters, he most likely consulted with his lover, John Laurens, on the subject matter, as Laurens had close connections with congress, and the target (number 1 on the above list) was Samuel Chase, a congressman who had basically scammed soldiers out of food, causing many to starve for a prolonged period.

Source: Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow, John Laurens and the American Revolution by Gregory D. Massey

Like Jefferson, Hamilton had his magnum opus, and the influence of others played a major role in defining the document. Hamilton would ask other men, including William Duer, and Gouverneur Morris to write this document, but ultimately settled on John Jay and James Madison. This was, of course, The Federalist.

William Duer was related to Hamilton by marriage, as they married a set of cousins. Duer was educated in England and worked for the East India Company, which gave him a very good resume to be one of Hamilton's coauthors. However, the two submissions Duer made for The Federalist were rejected. Gouverneur Morris was a blue-blooded politician who gave the most speeches at the Constitutional Convention, a whopping 173. He spoke multiple languages and had been educated at King's College, which is now the ivy league Columbia. Morris was too busy to contribute to the project.

John Jay was the first coauthor selected. He had been the main draftsman of the New York State Constitution, a negotiator of the Treaty of Paris (1783), and was another alumni of King's College. He later became the first chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, and negotiate a treaty with Great Britain. Hamilton often called on him in regards to political matters, and the two were close, lifelong allies. Jay only wrote five of the 85 Federalist essays, because he was hit in the head with a fucking brick during the Cadaver Riots.

Source: Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow

The other principal author of The Federalist was James Madison. James Madison, in my opinion, was the most qualified to write The Federalist, despite his later delusions about the Constitution (which were largely the result of Jefferson's influence on his opinion but that's neither here nor there). James Madison was educated at what was considered the greatest educational institute in 18th century America: Princeton (then called the College of New Jersey). Madison was the reason Hamilton wasn't able to take an expedited course to his degree, because Madison had attempted to finish his four year education in two years, and had a nervous breakdown... fun fact...

But, still, he got his law degree from Princeton, and was in several legislatures, including the Virginia Governor's council where he met Jefferson. And of course, he was the author of the Virginia Plan, which was the foundation of the US Constitution of 1787. His notes on the Constitutional Convention are the most complete set of notes, and he was there every fucking day. So yeah, James Madison knew the Constitution pretty well, even if he eventually cared too much about states' rights to recognize what was blatantly written in the Constitution, and maintained that viewpoint until his presidency.

Source: Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow, The Three Lives of James Madison by Noah Feldman

The Federalist was not as evenly divided between the authors as Hamilton intended, since he could not shut the fuck up, but that's not the point. The point is that the men he sought to be his coauthors had several things in common: they attended prestigious educational institutions and had long histories of Revolutionary work. Reading of these men's person histories reads like you're going through a company's qualifications for their employees. Because it almost was except they weren't getting paid. Hamilton sought out these men based on their qualifications, and, as you can see by William Duer's rejected submissions, he had a high standard that they had to fit for him to affix his name next to theirs (which he didn't do until the weeks leading up to his death because he knew he was gonna die but that's a topic for another time).

I KNOW THIS IS LONG BUT IM STILL FUCKING GOING BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GIVE ME THE CHANCE TO ANSWER COMPLEX QUESTIONS ABOUT HISTORY INSTEAD OF THE SAME FOUR SHIT SUBJECTS THAT EVERY HISTORIAN COVERS IN THEIR BOOKS THANK YOU OKAY

This pattern of finding qualified contributors to his works continued throughout his life. Now, idk if you know this, but Hamilton was actually planning another The Federalist-style publication right before his death and i am LITERALLY SO EXCITED TO TALK ABOUT THIS

Hamilton told his visiting friend James Kent that he wanted to look through all of history and analyze government and the various forms it took throughout all of written history. Mirroring The Federalist, he intended to invite six to eight authors, including John Jay, Gouverneur Morris, Rufus King, John M. Mason, and James Kent. He thought that each of these men would write about the subjects in which they specialized (Kent on law, Mason on theological history, etc.) Hamilton would be in charge of writing a synthesis on the previous volumes.

"The conclusions to be drawn from these historical reviews he intended to reserve for his own task and this is the imperfect scheme which then occupied his thoughts." -Chancellor James Kent

Source: Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow

As you can imagine, these additional dudes followed the pattern shown above for Hamilton's qualifications for his coauthors, especially for a project this big. I mean, if this could have happened, it would have been literally incredible. I did the calculations, and it would have taken Hamilton five years after 1804 to get rid of all of his debts. If he had lived for that length of time, he could have started on this project, and alleviated the debts that later plagued his family. But that ties into my other theories on Hamilton's death, and that is just too weighty of a subject to get into in a post that's already this long.

To wrap this all up, the conclusion we can draw here is really just related to the class differences between Hamilton and Jefferson. Alexander Hamilton was not bound by a lack of social mobility in the 18th century, since he completely decimated that concept by his existence, which allowed him to view his co-contributors more objectively and more selectively. He handpicked those who he worked closely with based on their qualifications and their experience. His categorization of their abilities in that last example shows that he specifically sought them to speak on subjects they were most acquainted with.

Jefferson, on the other hand, didn't have that kind of social mobility, nor did he desire it. Jefferson stuck with his peers, who were mostly all lawyers of the same religion and political beliefs. While I'm not saying Hamilton was going around and writing alongside Democratic Republicans, he certainly didn't pick those he worked with based on like-mindedness or status. He chose them entirely on the basis of their revolutionary resumes, and that is really the difference we see in these two men's respective political careers. Was that the reason Jefferson was president and Hamilton wasn't? Definitely not. Was that the reason they didn't get along? Well, it certainly didn't make them like each other. Does it make Hamilton smarter? No, surprisingly. Do I like Hamilton more because of this? No comment.

I know this is lengthy, but I've literally been brewing up historical theory in my head for the past six months without having any outlet for it besides ranting at my parents and scribbling in the margins of Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow (as you can tell by my sources). I genuinely cannot say how much I appreciate this kind of question, because it not only gets me thinking, but it allows me to remember why I got into history in the first place, and why I want to spend the rest of my life educating people on the wonderous world of pussy politics between middle aged men that are so decomposed, the matter that made up their bald ass heads is probably in your drinking water (have fun thinking about that). Anyways, thank you for the ask and I hope you got enough examples :3

54 notes · View notes

deadpresidents · 4 months

Text

Dear Mr. President:

Always there have been men who had contempt for the "word" although words have survived better than any other man-made things. St. John says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God." When you have finished using a weapon, someone is dead or injured, but the product of the word can be life and hope and survival. All of the greatness of our species rests on words -- Socrates to his judges -- the Sermon on the Mount, the introduction to Wyclif's Bible, later taken by Lincoln for the Gettysburg Address. And all of these great and irretrievable words have the bravery of fear and hope in them. There must have been a fierce but hollow feeling in the members of the Continental Congress when the clerk first read the words, "When in the course of human events --." Lincoln must have dwelt with loneliness when he wrote the order of mobilization.

In our history, there have been not more than five or six moments when the word and the determination mapped the course of the future. Such a moment was your speech, Sir, to the Congress two nights ago. Our people will be living by phrases from that speech when all the concrete and steel have long been displaced or destroyed. It was a time of no turning back, and in my mind as well as in many others, you have placed your name among the great ones of history.

And I take great pride in the fact that you are my President.

Yours in admiration, John Steinbeck

-- Letter from John Steinbeck to President Lyndon B. Johnson on March 17, 1965, two days after LBJ's monumental "We Shall Overcome" speech to a Joint Session of Congress urging the passage of the Voting Rights Act in the wake of "Bloody Sunday" in Selma, Alabama

18 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 3 months

Text

This is a Norman Rockwell painting called Murder in Mississippi. It depicts the final moments in the lives of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, three civil rights workers killed by members of the Ku Klux Klan 58 years ago this June for registering people to vote. That's not ancient history. It's current events.

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

June 21, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JUN 22, 2024

Sixty years ago today, on June 21, 1964, twenty-year-old Andrew Goodman mailed a postcard to his parents in New York City. He had arrived in Meridian, Mississippi, the day before to work with Michael Schwerner, a 24-year-old former New York social worker, and James Chaney, a 21-year-old Black man from Meridian, to register Black voters in what became known as Freedom Summer.

“Dear Mom and Dad,” Goodman wrote. “I have arrived safely in Meridian Mississippi. This is a wonderful town and the weather is fine. I wish you were here. The people in this city are wonderful and our reception was very good. All my love, Andy.”

Mississippi had become a focal point for voter registration because fewer than 7% of Black Mississippians were registered, but members of the local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan, dedicated to preserving segregation and to keeping Black people from voting, intended to stop the people challenging their power. They had come to loathe Schwerner— like Goodman, a Jewish man— who along with his wife, Rita, had taken over the field office of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) in Meridian and had begun grassroots organizing.

At meetings, Ku Klux Klan members routinely talked about killing Schwerner, but without authorization from the Klan’s state leader, Sam Bowers, they held off. Several weeks before Goodman arrived in Mississippi, they got that authorization.

On June 21, Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman set out to investigate the recent burning of a church whose leaders had agreed to participate in voter registration, an arson that, unbeknownst to them, was committed by the same Klan members who had received authorization to kill Schwerner.

After the three men left the burned church, Deputy Sheriff Cecil Ray Price stopped their car, arrested Schwerner for speeding, and held Chaney and Goodman under suspicion that they were the ones who had burned the church. Once night had dropped, after they paid the speeding ticket and left the Philadelphia, Mississippi, jail, Price followed them, stopped them, ordered them into his car, and then took them down a deserted road and turned them over to two carloads of his fellow terrorists. They beat the men, murdered them, and buried them in an earthen dam that was under construction.

Aside from the murderers, no one knew where the three men had gone. Their fellow CORE workers had begun calling jails and police stations as soon as they didn’t turn up according to schedule, but no one told them where the men were. By June 22 the men’s friends had gotten FBI agents from New Orleans to join the search. On June 23 the agents found the station wagon the men had been driving, still smoldering from an attempt to burn it.

As the agents searched—turning up 8 murdered Black men, but not the three they were looking for— President Lyndon B. Johnson, who as Senate majority leader had wrestled the Civil Rights Act of 1957 through Congress and who had pushed hard for a stronger civil rights law since becoming president in November 1963, harnessed the growing outrage over the missing men.

The House had passed a civil rights bill in February 1964, but southern segregationist Democrats in the Senate filibustered it from March until June 18, when news stations covered the story of hotel owner James Brock pouring acid into a whites-only swimming pool at the Monson Motor Lodge in St. Augustine, Florida, after Black and white people jumped into the water together. The water diluted the acid and the swimmers were not injured, but law enforcement arrested them. Seeing a white man pour acid into a swimming pool to drive out Black people created such outrage that senators abandoned their opposition to the measure.

On June 19, Republican Everett Dirksen (R-IL), the Senate minority leader, managed to deliver enough Republican votes to Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) to break the filibuster. The Senate passed the bill and sent their version back to the House. Johnson used the popular rage over the three missing voting rights workers to pressure the House to pass the bill, and it did.

Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law on July 2.

Just before he wrote his name, Johnson addressed the American people on television. Tying the new law to the upcoming anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, he noted that “those who founded our country knew that freedom would be secure only if each generation fought to renew and enlarge its meaning…. Americans of every race and color have died in battle to protect our freedom. Americans of every race and color have worked to build a nation of widening opportunities. Now our generation of Americans has been called on to continue the unending search for justice within our own borders.”

Johnson celebrated that the bill had bipartisan support of more than two thirds of the lawmakers in Congress and that it enjoyed the support of “the great majority of the American people.” “[M]ost Americans are law-abiding citizens who want to do what is right,” he said. “My fellow citizens, we have come now to a time of testing. We must not fail.”

Those opposed to Black equality saw the passage of the Civil Rights Act as a call to arms. On July 16, two weeks after Johnson signed the bill and a little more than three weeks after Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner disappeared and while they were still missing, Arizona senator Barry Goldwater strode across the stage at the Republican National Convention to accept the party’s nomination for president. To thunderous applause, he told delegates that “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And…moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” The votes of the delegates from South Carolina, the state that launched the Civil War in defense of American slavery, were the ones that put his nomination over the top.

On August 4 the bodies of the missing men were found in the dam near Philadelphia, Mississippi.

It turned out that Deputy Sheriff Price, who had arrested Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman, and his boss, Sheriff Lawrence A. Rainey, were members of the Ku Klux Klan. Price had alerted his fellow Klansman Edgar Ray Killen that he had the three men in custody, and Killen called the local Klan together to attack the men when they got out of jail. Then Price dropped the three civil rights workers into their hands.

While the state of Mississippi would not prosecute, claiming insufficient evidence, in January 1965 a federal grand jury indicted 18 men for their participation in the murders. The Ku Klux Klan members, who were accustomed to running their states as they saw fit, did not believe they would be punished. An infamous photograph caught Price and Rainey laughing during a hearing after their federal arraignment on charges of conspiracy and violating the civil rights of the murdered men.

Ultimately, a jury found seven of the defendants guilty. Killen walked free because in addition to being a Klan leader, he was also a Baptist minister, and a member of the jury would not convict a minister. Price was convicted and sentenced to six years in prison (he served four). Rainey, who was not at the murder scene, was found not guilty, but he lost his job and his marriage and blamed the FBI and the media for ruining his life.

Voters in the 1964 election backed Johnson’s vision of the country, rejecting Goldwater by a landslide. Ominously, though, Goldwater won his own state of Arizona and five states of the Deep South—Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. The Republican Party had begun to court the segregationist southern Democrats.

In 1980, Republican presidential candidate Ronald Reagan spoke in Philadelphia, Mississippi, on August 3, sixteen years almost to the day after the bodies of the three men had been found.

“I believe in states' rights,” he said. “I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. And I believe that we've distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended in the constitution to that federal establishment. And if I do get the job I'm looking for, I'm going to devote myself to trying to reorder those priorities and to restore to the states and local communities those functions which properly belong there.”

In January 2004 a multiracial group of citizens who wanted justice for the 1964 murders met with Mississippi state attorney general Jim Hood and local district attorney Mark Duncan, as well as with Andrew Goodman's mother Carolyn Goodman and brother David Goodman, to ask Hood to reopen the case. In January 2005 a grand jury indicted Killen, who had organized the Klan to go after Chaney, Schwerner, and Goodman, for their murder.

On June 21, 2005, a jury found the 80-year-old Killen guilty of manslaughter.

He died in prison six years ago.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#history #the South #Mississippi #Civil Rights #the KKK #Ku Klux Klan #murder #race #racism #voting rights #civil rights #Lyndon Johnson

15 notes · View notes

justinspoliticalcorner · 2 months

Text

Jennifer Bendery at HuffPost:

In a Sunday night Oval Office address to the nation, President Joe Biden called on Americans to come together and “lower the temperature in our politics,” a day after a man shot at former President Donald Trump during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. “While we may disagree, we are not enemies,” Biden said in his televised address. “We’re neighbors. We’re friends, co-workers, citizens. Most importantly, we’re fellow Americans. We must stand together.”

The president ticked off cases of politically motivated violence in recent years, including members of Congress being the targets of an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021; the attack on the husband of then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.); and the kidnapping plot in 2020 against Michigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. And of course, he said, the attempted assassination of Trump. “There’s no place in America for this kind of violence, for any violence ever. Period. No exceptions,” he said. “We can’t allow this violence to be normalized.” The president said Saturday’s shooting at Trump’s rally in Pennsylvania “calls on all of us to take a step back” and think about “how we go forward from here.” Biden noted that he called Trump on Saturday night and is “grateful” he is doing well. He also offered his condolences to the family of Corey Comperatore, who was shot and killed at the rally while sheltering his family from the bullets.

Sunday night’s Oval Office from President Joe Biden laid home what America is about.

Biden’s line is golden for this time in need: “While we may disagree, we are not enemies. We’re neighbors. We’re friends, co-workers, citizens. Most importantly, we’re fellow Americans. We must stand together.”

Another solid Biden quote: “There’s no place in America for this kind of violence, for any violence ever. Period. No exceptions. We can’t allow this violence to be normalized.”

See Also:

The Guardian: Biden urges US to reject ‘extremism and fury’ after Trump assassination attempt

Daily Kos: Watch: Biden gives Oval Office address on attempted assassination of Trump

The Dean's Report: Dear corporate media: Biden has denounced violence while Trump has incited and celebrated it

#Joe Biden #Oval Office #Donald Trump #2024 Trump Assassination Attempt #Corey Comperatore #Gretchen Whitmer Kidnapping Plot #Assault on Paul Pelosi #Capitol Insurrection

7 notes · View notes

critical-skeptic · 3 months

Text

Make a United States Department of Reason Branch of Government

To: President Joseph R. Biden

Dear President Biden,

In light of the recent Supreme Court decision granting presidential immunity and the looming danger of a potential revenge presidency by the convicted felon and former president, Donald Trump, it is imperative that we re-evaluate our approach to governance and decision-making. The current political climate, marked by partisan gridlock, a lack of informed decision-making, and the influence of populism, underscores the need for a more rational and expertise-driven framework. To address these issues and enhance the intellectual rigor of our government, I propose the establishment of a new executive branch agency: the Department of Reason (DoR).

Purpose and Mission

The primary mission of the DoR will be to ensure that all major policy decisions and legislative actions are informed by the highest standards of intellectual and academic rigor. This department will serve as an advisory and oversight body, providing evidence-based analysis, expert consultation, and rational discourse on matters of national importance.

Structure and Composition

1. High Standards of Membership: Membership in the DoR should be limited to individuals who possess exceptional intellectual credentials. This includes, but is not limited to, experts in socio-political disciplines, constitutional law, science, technology, economics, and other relevant fields. A minimum IQ threshold and demonstrated expertise in their respective domains will be mandatory for membership.

2. Interdisciplinary Approach: The DoR will be composed of representatives from a diverse range of academic and professional backgrounds. This interdisciplinary approach will ensure comprehensive and balanced perspectives on complex issues.

3. Academic and Expert Consensus: The DoR will operate on a model of academic and expert consensus. Major decisions will require the approval of a majority of the department's members, ensuring that policies are grounded in rational analysis and empirical evidence.

Roles and Responsibilities

1. Policy Review and Approval: The DoR will review and provide recommendations on all major policy proposals before they are enacted. This includes legislative bills, executive orders, and regulatory changes. The department will have the authority to veto proposals that do not meet rigorous standards of rationality and evidence-based decision-making.

2. Advisory Role: The DoR will serve as an advisory body to the President, Congress, and other government agencies. It will provide expert analysis and recommendations on a wide range of issues, from economic policy to national security.

3. Public Engagement and Education: The DoR will engage with the public to promote understanding and support for evidence-based policies. This includes public lectures, publications, and collaboration with educational institutions.

4. Ethics and Integrity: The DoR will uphold the highest standards of ethical conduct and intellectual integrity. Members will be required to adhere to strict codes of conduct, ensuring that their analyses and recommendations are unbiased and based solely on rational deliberation.

Implementation

1. Legislative Action: The establishment of the DoR will require legislative action to create the necessary legal framework and funding. I urge you to work with Congress to draft and pass the necessary legislation.

2. Selection Process: An independent commission, composed of leading academics and professionals, should be established to oversee the selection process for DoR members. This will ensure that membership is based on merit and expertise, rather than political considerations.

3. Initial Focus Areas: In its initial phase, the DoR should focus on addressing pressing issues that require immediate attention. This includes climate change, economic inequality, healthcare, and education reform. By demonstrating its effectiveness in these areas, the DoR can build public trust and support for its broader mission.

The establishment of the Department of Reason represents a bold and innovative step toward improving the quality of governance in our country. By centralizing decision-making authority with a body of highly qualified experts, we can ensure that our policies are guided by reason, evidence, and intellectual rigor. This will not only enhance the effectiveness of our government but also restore public trust in our institutions.

Sincerely,

The Critical Skeptic

#Department of Reason #United States #Remove MAGA SCOTUS #MAGA #SCOTUS #POTUS #Presidential Immunity #Donald Trump #Joe Biden #lock him up #Letter To The President #the critical skeptic #critical thinking #reason #open letter #elections 2024

7 notes · View notes

tomorrowusa · 4 months

Text

youtube

Apparently the GOP used to have a reputation as the party of "law and order". That has certainly not been true since it became a Trump cult in 2016.

Republicans will now tell any lie to justify the violent rantings made by the Dear Leader and his terrorist base – both visible and underground.

The United States has never been this close to fascism – even in the pre-World War II era when there were Nazis openly organizing and there were pro-Hitler members of Congress.

The only way to preserve democracy this year in the USA is to vote for Joe Biden. Third party fantasies, Leninist "heightening the contradictions", and old school slackerism are all bullshit. There is no such thing as a "dictator for one day" in history.

#the rule of law #republicans #republican assault on law and order #donald trump #convicted felon trump #gop stockholm syndrome #strongman fanboy club #michelle goldberg #tim miller #alex wagner #democracy vs. fascism #election 2024 #vote blue no matter who

7 notes · View notes

feline17ff · 8 months

Text

(the below text is copy-pasted from KidLit4Ceasefire's update emails)

Dire News:

There are looming bills in both the Senate and the House that include billions in taxpayer dollars to Israel (not just the House). The $118 billion Senate bill includes $14.1 billion dollars going to Israel and $10 billion dollars in humanitarian aid to Gaza, the West Bank, and Ukraine. While the house is prepping a bill that is a standalone $17.6 billion dollars in aid to Israel. Much of this money has been allocated for more artillery. We're inviting everyone to message your reps this week and urge them to vote no. You can find your rep HERE. You can find your senator HERE. On the morning of Monday, February 5th, we're also posting the following on social media. We invite you to join in the campaign if you're willing. Taxpayers dollars should NEVER fund genocide. Passing this bill goes directly against the ICJ & would continue to make the U.S. complicit in the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza & the West Bank. [@your rep] as my representative, I urge you to vote NO and call for a #CeasefireNOW

Email text and social media graphic under the cut:

Dear X, I'm writing to you today to share that I am proudly 1 of 8,000 members of the publishing community that have signed the #KidLit4Ceasefire letter to Biden urging him to take action to demand a permanent and immediate ceasefire in Gaza and the West Bank. It has come to my attention that you are reviewing a bill that would send billions of taxpayer dollars to continue to fund Israel's genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. I am urging you to vote NO on any bill that includes funding to Israel that would directly go against the ICJ and would continue to make the U.S. complicit to genocide. Our full letter, which is on its way to President Biden's office this week with 8,000 signatures, and the 5,650+ names that have agreed to be publicly displayed, can be found here: bit.ly/KidLit4CeasefireLettertoBiden We’ve come together as children’s authors, illustrators, agents, editors, and other publishing professionals across the U.S. and beyond who have witnessed the indiscriminate bombing and ground invasions of Gaza by Israeli forces over the last 100+ days. These attacks have resulted in more than 31,000 Palestinians killed. 13,000 of these victims are children of a median reported age of five years old. Thousands more Palestinian children still remain buried in rubble and are unaccounted for. This is an impossible number to comprehend for anyone who honors the sanctity of life. We are adding our voices to the widespread call from U.S. Congressmembers, UN General Assembly, WHO, UNICEF, Jewish Voice for Peace, Doctors Without Borders, Amnesty International, The International Committee of the Red Cross, and many other organizations — along with millions of U.S. citizens. As advocates for children, we demand that the President of the United States, along with the U.S. Congress, immediately join the leaders worldwide who are calling for a permanent ceasefire. Respectfully, (Your Name)

#america #kidlit4ceasefire #free palestine #ceasefire now #genocide #letter to biden #biden administration

12 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 2 years

Text

(JTA) — The Republican nominee for Congress in Texas’ 7th district is a self-proclaimed history buff, but his take on Anne Frank is not one that most historians would endorse.

Johnny Teague, an evangelical pastor and business owner who won the district’s primary in March, in 2020 published “The Lost Diary of Anne Frank,” a novel imagining the famous Jewish Holocaust victim’s final days in the Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen concentration camps as she might have written them in her diary.

The kicker: In Teague’s telling, Frank seems to embrace Christianity just before she is murdered by the Nazis.

Published by Las Vegas-based publisher Histria Books, the speculative book attempts to faithfully extend the writing style of Frank’s “original” diary entries into her experiences in the camps: it “picks up where her original journey left off,” according to the promotional summary. Teague claims to have interviewed Holocaust survivors and visited the Anne Frank House, multiple concentration camps and the major Holocaust museums in Washington, D.C., and Israel as part of his research.

“I would love to learn more about Jesus and all He faced in His dear life as a Jewish teacher,” Teague’s Anne Frank character muses at one point, saying that her dad had tried to get her a copy of the New Testament. Anne’s father Otto Frank, who in real life did survive the Holocaust, seems to have been spared a tragic fate in Teague’s telling because of his interest in learning about Jesus.

Later, Anne does learn about Jesus through other means, reciting psalms and expressing sympathy for Jesus’ plight.

By book’s end, Anne is firm in her belief that “every Jewish man or woman should ask” questions like “Where is the Messiah? … Did He come already, and we didn’t recognize Him?”

Teague, responding to a query from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency after the story’s initial publication, said his book had been “misrepresented” and that it shows Frank “relating her suffering to the historic persecution by Egypt, Haman, Assyria, Rome and others — all horrific facts of how the precious Jewish people have been attacked for so many centuries.”

Teague said he based Frank’s interpretation of Jesus off of a reference in her original diary to her father wanting her and her sister Margot “to be exposed to the New Testament and the life of Jesus” and, “As she made those entries in her own hand, I could not pretend that the thoughts, lessons, or questions of Jesus never crossed her mind afterward.” He also said he included Jesus because “when the Jewish people were suffering so much torment and suffering, it is impossible to imagine them not contemplating in their turmoil the longing for a Messiah to rescue them.”

While Teague’s version of Frank doesn’t explicitly indicate she wants to convert to Christianity, she makes many comments praising Christians she meets in the concentration camp, noting of one woman, “What I love about her is her faith in God and her faith in Jesus.” Later, Frank says, “I am seeing a stark difference in some of the Christians here, as opposed to the others… It seems Christians are more willing to die than the rest of us.”

Teague says such passages don’t necessarily represent a full conversion to Christianity. “Do I think Anne Frank became a Christian? No one can know what spiritual decisions or conclusions people make in a time of tragedy and persecution,” Teague continued. “This book does not indicate either way.”

He added, “We must stand with the Jewish people and for them.”

Teague also claims in his candidate biography that he “has been affiliated with” the Association for Jewish Studies, the academic membership organization devoted to Jewish studies. Teague’s Anne Frank book appears on a 2021 AJS list of books by its own members, under the author name “Johnny Mark Teague.” AJS did not return requests for comment.

The candidate’s top issues on his website include “Close the Border,” “Eliminate Property Taxes” and his belief that fossil fuels are divinely ordained: “If you believe in a Creator and that everything is here for a purpose, then you have to realize that fossil fuels are not an accident. At the very beginning of time, God knew we would need automation and industry, so in His Wisdom, He gave us the fuels that we would need.”

It’s common for evangelical Christians to engage in proselytizing, including toward Jews, and surveys have indicated that nearly half of American adults believe the country should be “a Christian nation.” But the size and scope of Teague’s efforts to undermine Anne Frank’s Judaism in his book is unusual even in such circles.

The Houston-area district Teague is running in has a Democratic incumbent. It was redrawn in 2020 but is still heavily favored to elect a Democrat.

This is the second time Teague has secured the Republican nomination for a Congressional district in Texas. He previously ran in the state’s ninth district in 2020, where he only received 21% of the vote in the general election. The election was held two days after “The Lost Diary of Anne Frank” was published.

194 notes · View notes

ivygorgon · 5 months

Text

AN OPEN LETTER to THE PRESIDENT & U.S. CONGRESS

Petition Against Israel's Forced Displacement and Threats of Violence

13 so far! Help us get to 25 signers!

Dear President Biden and Members of Congress,

We, the undersigned, express our deep concern and condemnation of Israel's ongoing acts of forced displacement and threats of violence against those who seek to return home.

The forced displacement of individuals from their homes is a violation of fundamental human rights and international law. It leads to immense suffering, loss of livelihoods, and perpetuates cycles of poverty and instability.

Furthermore, the threats of violence against those who seek to return home are reprehensible and undermine the basic principles of safety and security for all individuals, regardless of their background or beliefs.

We call upon the international community to take immediate and decisive action to pressure Israel to cease these illegal and inhumane practices. We urge governments, international organizations, and civil society to:

1. Condemn Israel's actions in the strongest terms possible and demand an immediate halt to all forced displacement and threats of violence.

2. Provide support and assistance to those affected by forced displacement, including access to shelter, healthcare, and legal aid.

3. Ensure accountability for those responsible for perpetrating and enabling these violations of human rights and international law.

4. Work towards a just and lasting solution based on the principles of equality, justice, and respect for human rights.

We stand in solidarity with the victims of forced displacement and violence and call for justice and accountability for all those affected.

▶ Created on April 16 by Fatima

📱 Text SIGN PUIESK to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW FREEPALESTINE to 50409

Source

7 notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 2 years

Text

Sen. Bernie Sanders said late Tuesday night that it was time to "put up or shut up" for any U.S. lawmaker who claims to fight for the working class as he and other progressives in Congress vowed to insert paid sick leave into a labor agreement between railway workers and the nation's rail companies.

With a vote in the U.S. House as early as Wednesday morning, Sanders was asked by MSNBC host Chris Hayes whether Congress has the authority to mandate that sick leave—the final key demand of railway workers unions who have battling the carriers for months—be added to the deal that congressional lawmakers have been asked by President Joe Biden to force through as a way to avert a strike by the workers that would have huge impacts on the national economy.

"Congress has the power to come up with an agreement in order to protect the economy," said Sanders. While he said that he doesn't know anybody who wants a strike—and acknowledged that such a work stoppage would hurt the broader economy—Sanders said the "bottom line" in this fight is quite clear.

"The bottom line," said Sanders, "is that the American people and workers throughout this country are profoundly disgusted by the kind of corporate greed that we are seeing. Everybody knows that billionaires are getting richer, working people are struggling, corporate profits are at an all-time high, and they're making goods unaffordable for ordinary Americans—that's the overall reality. And what you're seeing in the rail industry is that phenomenon in spades."

Citing statistics that show the major rail carriers have made an estimated $21 billion in profits over the last three quarters, another $25 billion in stock buybacks to enrich their wealthy investors, and multi-million dollar salaries to top executives, Sanders slammed the fact that the railway workers themselves "have zero—underline zero—guaranteed sick leave."

Watch the full interview:

youtube

On Tuesday night, Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) introduced an amendment in the House that would add seven paid sick days to the labor contract proposal that was negotiated with the assistance of the White House earlier this year, but subsequently rejected by a number of the railway unions for lack of sick leave. With the strike deadline looming, Biden on Monday angered many rank-and-file union members and outside progressives by asking Congress to force through the previous contract deal without pushing for the inclusion of sick leave.

While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Monday backed Biden's call to push through a vote on the contract "with no poison pills or changes to the negotiated terms," but in a Dear Colleague letter issued Tuesday evening she adjusted that course by indicating that two votes would be held, explaining to members:

• First, we will consider the strike-averting legislation to adopt the Tentative Agreement, as negotiated by the railroad companies and labor leaders.

• Next, we will have a separate, up-or-down vote to add seven days of paid sick leave for railroaders to the Tentative Agreement.

• Then, we will send this package to the Senate, which will then go directly to President Biden for signature.

With Sanders vowing to fight for the same kind of inclusion in the Senate, reporting from Capitol Hill indicated that there may be enough Republican support for adding the paid sick leave to bypass the 60-vote threshold and overcome a filibuster in the upper chamber.

Asked if he thought he could get the ten necessary votes from the GOP in the Senate, Sanders said, "Well, who knows?" as he mentioned that Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the party caucus' whip, has indicated "significant" support for the amendment among Republicans.

"Look, you have a number of Republicans who claim—claim—to be supporters of the working class," he added. "Well, if you are a supporter of the working class how are you going to vote against the proposal which provides guaranteed paid sick leave to workers who have none right now? So I am cautiously optimistic that we can get this done."

Asked by Hayes if this represents a "put your money where your mouth is" moment for a Republican Party that has tried to claim the mantle of being the authentic blue-collar party, Sanders nodded in agreement.

"Put up or shut up," said Sanders. "If you can't vote for this, to give workers today—who really have hard jobs, dangerous jobs—if you can't give them paid sick leave, don't tell anybody that you stand with working families."

137 notes · View notes