#J.D. Smith

[marvelmutantmagic616]

Ultimate X-Men (2001) #14

Penciller: Esad Ribic Inker: John Livesay Colorist: J.D. Smith

[batgovernor]

The Two-State Dissolution (3): Smith, Burch, Foster, McCarthy, Helweg-Larsen, Bales

J.D. Smith, ‘Apology in Siege’ I hope you will forgive mefor having given you hope—Too late for youthful indiscretion, thoughI believed my story and felt young in ituntil the metal facts fell. I’d still like to imagine some godwould help, but that line looks brokenlike the water, the gas and electricity. What we have is hours, and in themyou should have the bread and fruitbefore they feed the…

[gameofthunder66]

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (2022- ) tv series

-(started) watchin' Season 2- 11/18/2024- on Amazon Prime

[daenysx]

hi guys, i'm trying to get out of reading slump because i hate it and also because i got so many books i want to read but can't decide where to start (it's a loop, i seriously have issues on this lol)

[blue-da-ba-dee]

2023 All Star Game ✓

[conniesmlb]

This week in baseball, Connie edition

June 1

~ Ronald Acuña Jr. is out for the season. Poor guy. ☹️

~ Jake Cronenworth achieved his 500th career hit.

~ Blake Treinen got his first save since 2021.

~ Jorge "I play for the worst team" Lopez tossed his glove into the stands after getting ejected. He's been DFA'd.

~ A hundred career home runs for Will Smith!

~ Matt Carpenter hit his first home run of the season.

~ Pete Alonso hurt his finger Wednesday, but was able to pinch hit for Brett Baty late in Thursday's game and did a great job, scoring a run. J.D. Martinez also hit a home run in the 8th inning of that same game. I love those guys.

~ Jose Siri had a two-homer game on Thursday vs. the A's.

~ Shohei Ohtani stole his 100th base!

~ Seiya Suzuki hit a grand slam.

~ So did Christian Walker.

~ And J.P. Crawford. It was a day for grand slams, I guess.

If I missed anything, feel free to let me know.

[ljones41]

Ranking of "FIGHT NIGHT: THE MILLION DOLLAR HEIST" (2024) Episodes

Below is my ranking of the episodes from the PEACOCK limited series, "FIGHT NIGHT: THE MILLION DOLLAR HEIST"., the 2024 adaptation of Jeff Keating and Jim Roberts' podcast, "Fight Night". Created by Shaye Ogbonna, the eight-part miniseries starred Kevin Hart:

RANKING OF "FIGHT NIGHT: THE MILLION DOLLAR HEIST" (2024) EPISODES

1. (1.08) "Round Eight: Testify" - In this surprisingly tense finale, numbers bookie Gordon "Chicken Man" Williams and Atlanta Police Detective J.D. Hudson face off against the mastermind of the "Fight Night" robbery at the former's post-fight party in a daring hustle.

2. (1.03) "Round Three: Black Vegas" - The city of Atlanta celebrates Muhammad Ali's big comeback victory. Unfortunately, Chicken Man's fight night party turns into a nightmare, thanks to a group of robbers.

3. (1.07) "Round Seven: Jekyll Island" - Detective Hudson and Chicken Man track the surviving robbers to an abandoned resort on the Georgia coast, leading to a violent standoff. Chicken Man's mistress, Vivian "Sweets" Thomas forms a business alliance with powerful gangster Frank Moten, securing her future.

4. (1.01) "Round One: The Ballad of Chicken Man" - Atlanta prepares for Muhammad Ali's comeback fight and Chicken Man sets his eye on the prize by offering to host the post-fight party on behalf of the country's Black Mafia leaders arriving in town. Detective Hudson is ordered to lead the bodyguard detail for Ali.

5. (1.04) "Round Four: Real Policework" - Suspected of being the robbery's mastermind, a desperate Chicken Man sets out to prove his innocence. And the Black Mafia leaders seek revenge for the robbery.

6. (1.05) "Round Five: Ambition Ain't Free" - Now on the run, Chicken Man is forced to form an alliance with Detective Hudson. And the latter finds himself in the spotlight as the media, the law and the Black Mafia contemplate on the robbery.

7. (1.06) "Round Six: Community Men" - The manhunt for Chicken Man increases, making it difficult for him to clear his name. Detective Hudson continues to work outside of the law to prove Chicken's innocence.

8. (1.02) "Round Two: Fight Night" - The Muhammad Ali-Jerry Quarry boxing match commences, while Chicken Man hustles to impress Frank Moten. The robbers begin their heist at Chicken Man's house.

[patriottruth]

This is a reminder that on March 4th, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States ordered donald j. trump to have 87 Democrats in both houses of Congress remove his insurrectionist disqualification from ever holding any federal office again; because if he didn't, nothing, including MAGA SCOTUS, could stop Democrats in the House and Senate from disqualifying him; even if he wins the 2024 presidential election. He failed to do so prior to November 5, 2024.

*** Just wanted to include a huge thank you to everyone who is liking and reblogging this post and engaging by writing to your congressional representatives AND Democratic Leaders Schumer and Jeffries. You're all amazing and I appreciate you so much! For those asking when we'll be seeing this in the news, I'm working on that every day; and every time anyone here on Tumblr engages like I mentioned above, it increases the chances that Leaders Schumer and Jeffries will speak about it on major media outlets. For everyone wanting to see this in the news sooner than later, please copy and paste this entire message into an email and send it to everyone you know, and then please also share this information with Marc Elias of Democracy Docket and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington via info@democracydocket.com and info@citizensforethics.org; because if enough people contact those attorneys, those attorneys have all of the media contacts they need to gain even more support for this effort.

I'm being asked what people can do once they've contacted their representatives and Democratic Leaders Schumer and Jeffries. The next step is lawyering up for United States vs. trump et. al. (donald trump and every state elector in the Electoral College who attempts to engage in and further insurrection against the United States by voting for disqualified insurrectionist donald j. trump). MAGA and trump are constantly being defeated in court by Marc Elias and his Democracy Docket team across the United States, and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington are the attorneys from the Anderson vs. trump case and numerous other cases against MAGA, donald trump, and the trump administration. Those attorneys can and will represent the United States, alongside the actual U.S. Department of Justice, in stopping donald trump from being elected by the Electoral College on December 17, 2024.

I'm so thankful that people here on Tumblr are feeling more hopeful after reading this post; because it was heartbreaking for me to witness the extent of the trauma and misery around this site immediately after the election. I hope this message finds everyone in a much better situation than they were in November 6th. Have a great day, everyone! ***

*** For those asking about a normal presidential line of succession when donald trump is disqualified via Section 3/14A, MAGA SCOTUS addressed this on March 4th, 2024 in their Anderson opinions about how federal enforcement that disqualifies donald trump post-election would change the President-elect to Kamala Harris, not j.d. vance; and technically, j.d. vance is conspiring with a known insurrectionist to assist that disqualified insurrectionist in holding office in violation of the U.S. Constitution, so he's disqualified as well. But if vance wasn't disqualified for giving aid to an insurrectionist, there is no presidential line of succession prior to a President-elect being inaugurated and sworn in; especially when that disqualified insurrectionist President-elect can't even be elected by the Electoral College; so it's just a disqualified presidential candidate dragging down everyone with them due to their insurrectionist disqualification. The Republican party knew that donald trump was and is nothing more than a disqualified presidential candidate who never had a real chance of being elected, thus they knowingly forfeited the 2024 presidential race to Harris when they nominated trump; and MAGA SCOTUS acknowledged this when even they acknowledged that donald trump is, and would continue to be, at the mercy of the Democrats in the House and Senate if he somehow managed to win the election and attempted to hold office as a disqualified insurrectionist. ***

Between today and December 17th, 2024, donald j. trump has no choice but to go to Congress and have 70 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 17 Democrats in the Senate vote to remove his insurrectionist disqualification, as he was ordered to do by SCOTUS on March 4th, 2024, or he's not legally the President Elect and cannot be inaugurated, sworn in, or hold federal office again on January 20, 2025. The clock is ticking!

What will happen on December 17th, 2024 if donald j. trump hasn't cleared his insurrectionist disqualification via a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress? Every Elector attempting to elect a known insurrectionist will be disqualified from being an Elector for engaging in and furthering insurrection against the United States. It is impossible for donald j. trump to remain as President Elect on December 17th, 2024; because every Elector in every state who attempts to vote for donald j. trump for President would then have to be immediately cleared of their insurrectionist disqualification by a two-thirds vote of their state legislature so that they could then vote for the only remaining legal, non-insurrectionist candidate. If donald j. trump hasn't cleared his insurrectionist disqualification by December 17, 2024, the only legal presidential candidate the Electoral College can vote for is Kamala Harris.

Article 2: Clause 3: Electoral College See also: Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Contingent election, Electoral College abolition amendment, Efforts to reform the United States Electoral College, and National Popular Vote Interstate Compact The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse [sic] by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse [sic] the President. But in chusing [sic] the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse [sic] from them by Ballot the Vice President.

Electoral College Elector Selection Process Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution requires each state legislature to determine how electors for the state are to be chosen, but it disqualifies any person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, from being an elector. Under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, any person who has sworn an oath to support the United States Constitution in order to hold either a state or federal office, and later rebelled against the United States directly or by giving assistance to those doing so, is disqualified from being an elector. Congress may remove this disqualification by a two-thirds vote in each house. (Wikipedia)

For those who would argue this is misinformation due to donald trump's MAGA cult allies in the Senate preventing him from being convicted, the bipartisan congressional J6 Committee investigated donald j. trump for insurrection, found him guilty of insurrection, referred him for criminal prosecution for insurrection, and donald j. trump was indicted and is currently being prosecuted for insurrection by the Department of Justice (unless the case gets dropped). Section 3 of the 14th Amendment doesn't require a formal conviction, so the congressional investigation, finding of insurrection, and the congressional committee referral for criminal prosecution, along with the federal indictment and prosecution for insurrection, can easily be used to keep donald j. trump from ever holding federal office again. Per the Supreme Court of the United States' own Berger Test to disqualify judges, the ridiculous, nonsensical, unethical and illegal MAGA SCOTUS majority "ruling" pertaining to their attempted declaration of donald j. trump's permanent immunity from federal enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment means absolutely nothing for him, or any other insurrectionist; because it lacks standing in precedent, law, constitutionality, and relevance.

The three dissenting justices clarify that the only matter that was actually legally settled and, therefore, legally enforceable, pertained to state actions, not federal law enforcement actions against a disqualified insurrectionist presidential or federal candidate, such as donald j. trump, committing the federal crime of being an insurrectionist attempting to hold office without having their insurrectionist disqualification removed via a two-thirds vote of both houses. And so it is legal fact that the Supreme Court did, in fact, order donald j. trump to have his insurrectionist disqualification removed by a two-thirds vote of both houses on March 4th, 2024; it's just that donald j. trump and his legal team were too illiterate and unintelligent to actually read what was legal and had standing (state enforcement against federal candidates), and what didn't (MAGA SCOTUS whining and crying about federal enforcement against federal candidates/their presidential candidate). And MAGA SCOTUS is now permanently legally barred from ever addressing any matter pertaining to federal enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against donald j. trump, so they can't even try to interfere on his behalf again should Democrats in the House of Representatives and the Senate demand and force a vote on the matter of donald j. trump's disqualification for holding federal office.

Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22 (1921), is a United States Supreme Court decision overruling a trial court decision by U.S. District Court Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis against Rep. Victor L. Berger, a Congressman for Wisconsin's 5th district and the founder of the Social Democratic Party of America, and several other German-American defendants who were convicted of violating the Espionage Act by publicizing anti-interventionist views during World War I.

The case was argued on December 9, 1920, and decided on January 31, 1921, with an opinion by Justice Joseph McKenna and dissents by Justices William R. Day, James Clark McReynolds, and Mahlon Pitney. The Supreme Court held that Judge Landis was properly disqualified as trial judge based on an affidavit filed by the German defendants asserting that Judge Landis' public anti-German statements should disqualify him from presiding over the trial of the defendants.

The House of Representatives twice denied Berger his seat in the House due to his original conviction for espionage using Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution regarding denying office to those who supported "insurrection or rebellion". The Supreme Court overturned the verdict in 1921 in Berger v. U.S., and Berger won three successive terms in the House in the 1920s.

Per the United States Supreme Court's "Berger test" that states that to disqualify ANY judge in the United States of America: 1) a party files an affidavit claiming personal bias or prejudice demonstrating an "objectionable inclination or disposition of the judge" and 2) claim of bias is based on facts antedating the trial.

All 6 criminal MAGA insurrectionist and trump-loyalist U.S. Supreme Court Justices who've repeatedly and illegally ruled in donald j. trump's favor are as disqualified from issuing any rulings pertaining to donald j. trump (a German immigrant) as the United States Supreme Court ruled U.S. District Court Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis was when he attempted to deny Victor L. Berger (a German immigrant) from holding office for violating the Espionage Act and supporting or engaging in insurrection or rebellion against the United States of America.

RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Rule 8. Disbarment and Disciplinary Action

Whenever a member of the Bar of this Court has been disbarred or suspended from practice in any court of record, or has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar of this Court, the Court will enter an order suspending that member from practice before this Court and affording the member an opportunity to show cause, within 40 days, why a disbarment order should not be entered. Upon response, or if no response is timely filed, the Court will enter an appropriate order.

After reasonable notice and an opportunity to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken, and after a hearing if material facts are in dispute, the Court may take any appropriate disciplinary action against any attorney who is admitted to practice before it for conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar or for failure to comply with these Rules or any Rule or order of the Court.

The only misinformation that exists surrounding the Anderson vs. trump ruling is the belief that the MAGA SCOTUS ruling on federal enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against donald j. trump settled the matter and handed him permanent immunity from prosecution should he ever commit the federal crime of attempting to hold federal office. In legal fact, MAGA SCOTUS' nonsensical ruling attempting to grant donald j. trump permanent immunity from prosecution for insurrection is grounds for immediate and permanent disbarment; as they're clearly attempting to legislate from the bench and prevent Congress from legislating in a way that's unfavorable to their presidential candidate.

This is the only pertinent and legally important part of the Anderson vs. trump ruling with regards to federal enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against donald j. trump or any other insurrectionist committing the federal crime of attempting to hold office without first having their insurrectionist disqualification removed by a two-thirds vote of both houses:

Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson Opinion on the Majority Ruling (supremecourt.gov):

Yet the majority goes further. Even though “[a]ll nine Members of the Court” agree that this independent and sufficient rationale resolves this case, five Justices go on. They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy. Ante, at 13. Although only an individual State’s action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so. The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement. We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment.

Yet the Court continues on to resolve questions not before us. In a case involving no federal action whatsoever, the Court opines on how federal enforcement of Section 3 must proceed. Congress, the majority says, must enact legislation under Section 5 prescribing the procedures to “ ‘ “ascertain[ ] what particular individuals” ’ ” should be disqualified. Ante, at 5 (quoting Griffin’s Case, 11 F. Cas. 7, 26 (No. 5,815) (CC Va. 1869) (Chase, Circuit Justice)). These musings are as inadequately supported as they are gratuitous.

To start, nothing in Section 3’s text supports the majority’s view of how federal disqualification efforts must operate. Section 3 states simply that “[n]o person shall” hold certain positions and offices if they are oathbreaking insurrectionists. Amdt. 14. Nothing in that unequivocal bar suggests that implementing legislation enacted under Section 5 is “critical” (or, for that matter, what that word means in this context). Ante, at 5. In fact, the text cuts the opposite way. Section 3 provides that when an oathbreaking insurrectionist is disqualified, “Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” It is hard to understand why the Constitution would require a congressional supermajority to remove a disqualification if a simple majority could nullify Section 3’s operation by repealing or declining to pass implementing legislation. Even petitioner’s lawyer acknowledged the “tension” in Section 3 that the majority’s view creates. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 31.

Similarly, nothing else in the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment supports the majority’s view. Section 5 gives Congress the “power to enforce [the Amendment] by appropriate legislation.” Remedial legislation of any kind, however, is not required. All the Reconstruction Amendments (including the due process and equal protection guarantees and prohibition of slavery) “are self-executing,” meaning that they do not depend on legislation. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 524 (1997); see Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 20 (1883). Similarly, other constitutional rules of disqualification, like the two-term limit on the Presidency, do not require implementing legislation. See, e.g., Art. II, §1, cl. 5 (Presidential Qualifications); Amdt. 22 (Presidential Term Limits). Nor does the majority suggest otherwise. It simply creates a special rule for the insurrection disability in Section 3.

The majority is left with next to no support for its requirement that a Section 3 disqualification can occur only pursuant to legislation enacted for that purpose. It cites Griffin’s Case, but that is a nonprecedential, lower court opinion by a single Justice in his capacity as a circuit judge. See ante, at 5 (quoting 11 F. Cas., at 26). Once again, even petitioner’s lawyer distanced himself from fully embracing this case as probative of Section 3’s meaning. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 35–36. The majority also cites Senator Trumbull’s statements that Section 3 “ ‘provide[d] no means for enforcing’ ” itself. Ante, at 5 (quoting Cong. Globe, 41st Cong., 1st Sess., 626 (1869)). The majority, however, neglects to mention the Senator’s view that “[i]t is the [F]ourteenth [A]mendment that prevents a person from holding office,” with the proposed legislation simply “affor[ding] a more efficient and speedy remedy” for effecting the disqualification. Cong. Globe, 41st Cong., 1st Sess., at 626–627.

Ultimately, under the guise of providing a more “complete explanation for the judgment,” ante, at 13, the majority resolves many unsettled questions about Section 3. It forecloses judicial enforcement of that provision, such as might occur when a party is prosecuted by an insurrectionist and raises a defense on that score. The majority further holds that any legislation to enforce this provision must prescribe certain procedures “ ‘tailor[ed]’ ” to Section 3, ante, at 10, ruling out enforcement under general federal statutes requiring the government to comply with the law. By resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.

“What it does today, the Court should have left undone.” Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 158 (2000) (Breyer, J., dissenting). The Court today needed to resolve only a single question: whether an individual State may keep a Presidential candidate found to have engaged in insurrection off its ballot. The majority resolves much more than the case before us. Although federal enforcement of Section 3 is in no way at issue, the majority announces novel rules for how that enforcement must operate. It reaches out to decide Section 3 questions not before us, and to foreclose future efforts to disqualify a Presidential candidate under that provision. In a sensitive case crying out for judicial restraint, it abandons that course.

Section 3 serves an important, though rarely needed, role in our democracy. The American people have the power to vote for and elect candidates for national office, and that is a great and glorious thing. The men who drafted and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, however, had witnessed an “insurrection [and] rebellion” to defend slavery. §3. They wanted to ensure that those who had participated in that insurrection, and in possible future insurrections, could not return to prominent roles. Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President. Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority’s effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision. Because we would decide only the issue before us, we concur only in the judgment.

What all of that means is that between now and December 17th, 2024, donald j. trump has no choice but to go to Congress and have 70 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 17 Democrats in the Senate vote to remove his insurrectionist disqualification, as he was ordered to do by SCOTUS on March 4th, 2024, or he's not legally the President Elect and cannot be inaugurated, sworn in, or hold federal office again on January 20, 2025. The clock is down to 19 days, and ticking!

Here's why this will work: donald trump's legal tactics are deny, attempt to wiggle out of it on technicalities, and delay, delay, delay. Well, from November 2023 to March 4, 2024, donald trump not only said that he was never an officer of the United States, but that he also never swore an oath to support the United States Constitution. And then he said that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says nothing about running for office, only holding office, and since he's only running for office, nothing can keep him off the ballot. And that's where this has finally caught up to him.

SCOTUS illegally took the case to begin with. Per the U.S. Constitution, SCOTUS was required to kick the case back to Congress immediately to force a two-thirds vote of both houses to remove or enforce donald trump's insurrectionist disqualification, and that would've settled the entire matter within a day. But they illegally denied Congress the ability to vote on it at the time, illegally legislated from the bench to keep donald trump on the ballot by illegally amending Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, and dismissed the clear two-thirds vote requirement to replace it with "Congress must pass new legislation and amend Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in order to keep insurrectionists off of the ballot and out of office in the future. All six MAGA SCOTUS injustices can now be immediately and permanently disbarred from ever judging or practicing law anywhere in the United States now and in the future for that illegal legislating from the bench; because the U.S. Constitution clearly says that the Judiciary can never interfere with Congress legislating, or with the President enforcing the laws of the United States.

donald trump and his allies figured that was a win, that SCOTUS couldn't be challenged, that the Democrats could never get legislation passed to keep him off the ballot or from holding office again, and the matter was dropped. But that's where he was wrong; because Section 3 of the 14th Amendment still reads, and only legally reads, that the only way an insurrectionist can hold federal office again is by a two-thirds vote removing their insurrectionist disqualification in both the House of Representatives and the Senate; and that means that now that donald trump can't try and use the technicality of "I'm not even trying to hold office, I'm just running for office," and he's actively trying to hold office with no technicality wiggle room, donald trump's only path to the White House is to have 70 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 17 Democrats in the Senate vote to remove his insurrectionist disqualification by December 17th, 2017; and his favorite tactic of delay, delay, delay won't work because delaying means he can't be inaugurated, sworn in, and serve as the 47th President of the United States; and that means Kamala Harris would become 47th President of the United States by default.

donald j. trump is actively engaging in the federal crime of attempting to hold federal office while being an impeached and criminally indicted insurrectionist. Chuck Schumer can easily force the Section 3 vote in the Senate; and if donald j. trump gets no Democrat votes in the Senate, then the House vote is unnecessary. If MAGA mike johnson refuses to allow a House vote, then that's an instant disqualification for insurrectionist donald j. trump.

Hakeem Jeffries Democratic Leader of the House of Representatives https://www.congress.gov/member/hakeem-jeffries/J000294 https://democraticleader.house.gov/contact

Chuck Schumer Democratic Leader of the Senate https://www.congress.gov/member/charles-schumer/S000148 https://www.schumer.senate.gov/contact/message-chuck

Here's a form letter that'll be under 1980 characters no matter if you're contacting House Democratic Leader Jeffries or Senate Democratic Leader Schumer. Just copy and paste the text into the contact form. If these Democratic leaders receive hundreds of these messages from different IP/Internet addresses, we'll have their attemtion. If they receive thousands of these messages from different IP/Internet addresses, we might see this in the news. If they receive tens of thousands of these messages from different IP/Internet addresses, we might finally be free from the threat of another donald trump presidency (turnout is everything in this fight for our human and civil rights, freedoms, and literal survival as non-trump supporters and non-MAGA cult members).

Dear Democratic Leader Jeffries,

My family, loved ones, friends, and I are greatly concerned that Donald J. Trump and all of his MAGA allies, supporters, enablers, donors, and voters have what clearly appear to be genocidal intentions to all American non-Trump supporters and voters whom they call, "traitors, anti-American, enemies from within, very bad people, very dangerous people, racists, radicals, extremists, communists, Marxists, fascists, thugs, liars, sick, ugly, stupid, mindless, thoughtless, brainless, disabled, deranged, criminals, rapists, cheaters, sleazebags, low-lifes, scum, trash, genetically inferior, weak, poison, insects, animals, rats, snakes, and vermin" on a regular basis. As I'm sure that you and all elected Democrat representatives at every level across the United States are aware, Donald J. Trump was not granted permanent immunity from federal enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in the SCOTUS ruling for Anderson vs. Trump on March 4, 2024; and the moment Donald J. Trump was declared the President Elect, he was committing the federal crime of attempting to hold office while being an impeached and indicted insurrectionist without first having that insurrectionist disqualification removed by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress. Donald J. Trump and his MAGA cult appear to intend to not only deport 15 million people, but to also engage in undeniable genocide and ethnic and cultural cleansing against half the population of the United States (using voter registration as a "vermin" purge mechanism). Thankfully, per the Supreme Court's own Berger Test to disqualify judges, Donald J. Trump's MAGA SCOTUS allies can never intervene on any of his legal cases again, so if you would please bring the matter of a two-thirds vote to the House of Representatives for an immediate vote by no later than December 11th, 2024, my fellow Americans and I would greatly appreciate it.

Respectully,

An American patriot

Dear Democratic Leader Schumer,

My family, loved ones, friends, and I are greatly concerned that Donald J. Trump and all of his MAGA allies, supporters, enablers, donors, and voters have what clearly appear to be genocidal intentions to all American non-Trump supporters and voters whom they call, "traitors, anti-American, enemies from within, very bad people, very dangerous people, racists, radicals, extremists, communists, Marxists, fascists, thugs, liars, sick, ugly, stupid, mindless, thoughtless, brainless, disabled, deranged, criminals, rapists, cheaters, sleazebags, low-lifes, scum, trash, genetically inferior, weak, poison, insects, animals, rats, snakes, and vermin" on a regular basis. As I'm sure that you and all elected Democrat representatives at every level across the United States are aware, Donald J. Trump was not granted permanent immunity from federal enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in the SCOTUS ruling for Anderson vs. Trump on March 4, 2024; and the moment Donald J. Trump was declared the President Elect, he was committing the federal crime of attempting to hold office while being an impeached and indicted insurrectionist without first having that insurrectionist disqualification removed by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress. Donald J. Trump and his MAGA cult appear to intend to not only deport 15 million people, but to also engage in undeniable genocide and ethnic and cultural cleansing against half the population of the United States (using voter registration as a "vermin" purge mechanism). Thankfully, per the Supreme Court's own Berger Test to disqualify judges, Donald J. Trump's MAGA SCOTUS allies can never intervene on any of his legal cases again, so if you would please bring the matter of a two-thirds vote to the Senate for an immediate vote by no later than December 11th, 2024, my fellow Americans and I would greatly appreciate it.

Respectully,

An American patriot

[cultfaction]

Cult Faction Podcast Ep. 112: Dark Night of Scarecrow (1981)

In this weeks episode Frank De Felitta’s 1981 made-for-television horror film Dark Night of the Scarecrow goes under the spotlight. It stars Larry Drake, Charles Durning, Robert F. Lyons, Claude Earl Jones, Lane Smith, Tonya Crowe, and Jocelyn Brando. It takes place in a small Southern town where four vigilantes wrongfully execute a man with Special Educational Needs – after the court sets them…

[writing-with-sophia]

Common character archetypes in literature

Character archetypes are universal patterns of behavior, personality traits, and motivations that are commonly found in literature, mythology, and other forms of storytelling. They are often used as a shorthand to help readers quickly understand and relate to a character's role and purpose in the story.

Here are some common character archetypes:

The Hero: The hero is a brave and noble character who goes on a quest or journey to achieve a goal or overcome a challenge. Examples of heroes include Odysseus in Homer's "The Odyssey" and Frodo in J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings."

The Villain: The villain is an evil character who opposes the hero and tries to prevent them from achieving their goal. Examples of villains include Darth Vader in "Star Wars" and Iago in Shakespeare's "Othello."

The Mentor: The mentor is a knowledgeable and seasoned figure who directs and encourages the protagonist throughout their adventure. Examples of mentors include Gandalf in "The Lord of the Rings" and Obi-Wan Kenobi in "Star Wars."

The Trickster: The trickster is a mischievous character who uses their wit and cunning to achieve their goals. Examples of tricksters include Loki in Norse mythology and Hermes in Greek mythology.

The Damsel in Distress: The damsel in distress is a female character who requires saving from a hero. Examples of damsels in distress include Princess Peach in the Mario video game series and Sleeping Beauty in the fairy tale of the same name.

The Wise Old Man/ Woman: The wise old man or woman is commonly portrayed as having immense wisdom and expertise, and often acts as a mentor or guide to the protagonist. Examples of wise old men and women include Dumbledore in the Harry Potter series and the Oracle in Greek mythology. Such archetypes have been frequently employed in literature over time to communicate universal themes and concepts about human existence.

The Innocent: The innocent is a pure and uncorrupted character who often serves as a symbol of hope and goodness. Examples of innocents include Dorothy in "The Wizard of Oz" and Boo Radley in "To Kill a Mockingbird."

The Outcast: The outcast is a character who is rejected by society and often feels a sense of alienation or isolation. Examples of outcasts include Frankenstein's monster in Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" and Hester Prynne in Nathaniel Hawthorne's "The Scarlet Letter."

The Temptress: The temptress is a seductive female character who lures men into danger or temptation. Examples of temptresses include Circe in Greek mythology and the character of Delilah in the Bible.

The Scapegoat: The scapegoat is a character who is blamed for the problems or issues of others. Examples of scapegoats include Tom Robinson in "To Kill a Mockingbird" and Piggy in "Lord of the Flies."

The Rebel: The rebel is a character who challenges authority and often advocates for change. Examples of rebels include Winston Smith in George Orwell's "1984" and Holden Caulfield in J.D. Salinger's "The Catcher in the Rye."

The Everyman: The everyman is a relatable character who represents the average person and often serves as the protagonist in a story. Examples of everymen include Bilbo Baggins in "The Hobbit" and Winston Smith in "1984."

The Wise Fool: The wise fool is often portrayed as someone who appears to be simple-minded, foolish, or even insane, but who possesses insights and wisdom that are not immediately apparent to others. Examples of the wise fools include the protagonist in "Diary of a Madman" and Yorick in "Tristram Shandy".

The preceding list outlines the typical character archetypes found in literature. Can you determine which archetype best fits your characters?

If you want to read more about The Wise Fool archetype, click here: The Wise Fool - Who is that?

[fuckyeahgoodomens]

Hey, amazing work you are doing <3

This is not a question, but thought I wanted to share this with everyone ^^

As someone who loves to read different kind of books and is always ready for recommendations, I was excited for the books being organized alphabetically in s2ep2. And since there was an X-ray of saying "... Would love for everyone to read these books..."

And I had way too much time so here is the list of those books:

No Woman, No Cry - Rita Marley

The Crow Road - Iain Banks

The curious incident of the dog in the night-time - Mark Haddon

Catch -22 - Joseph Heller

Love in the Time of Cholera - Garriet Garcia Marquez

Nineteen eighty four - Orwell George

The Big Sleep - Raymond Chandler

The Bible

The Great Gatsby -F. Scott Fitzgerald

The catcher in the Rye - J.D. Salinger

A Series of Unfortunate Events - Lemony Snicket

Herzog - Saul Bellow

I know I missed one or two, but those are at least there.

Hiya! :) Thank you, made a thing: :) (Added A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens, I Capture the Castle by Dodie Smith and The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath :)<3)

[batgovernor]

The Two-State Dissolution (2): Landsman, Burch, Lehr, Foster, Galef, Soderling, Kenny, Helweg-Larsen, Smith, Bales, Shore

Peggy Landsman, Go Tell It On The Mountain Hagar and Sarah should have talked, Laughed together when alone. Who did Abraham think he was? Ha-Yehudi ha-rishon?* Ishmael and Isaac should have beenBoon companions, closer than brothers,Passing their days doing their chores,Tending their father’s sheep together… Staying up late entertaining themselvesArguing over the numbers of starsEach was the…

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

deAdder

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

August 28, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Aug 29, 2024

Former president Trump appears to have slid further since last night’s news about a new grand jury’s superseding indictment of him on charges of trying to overthrow the 2020 presidential election. Over the course of about four hours this morning, Trump posted 50 times on his social media platform, mostly reposting material that was associated with QAnon, violent, authoritarian, or conspiratorial. 

He suggested he is “100% INNOCENT,” and that the indictment is a “Witch Hunt.” He called for trials and jail for special counsel Jack Smith, former president Barack Obama, and the members of Congress who investigated the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. And he reposted a sexual insult about the political careers of both Vice President Kamala Harris and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Meanwhile, Trump’s campaign has today escalated the fight about Trump’s photo op Monday at Arlington National Cemetery, where campaign staff took photos and videos in Section 60, the burial ground of recent veterans, apparently over the strong objections of cemetery officials. Then the campaign released photos and a video from the visit attacking Harris. 

Arlington National Cemetery was established on the former property of General Robert E. Lee in 1864, after the Lee family did not pay their property taxes. At the time, Lee was leading Confederate forces against the United States government, and those buried in the cemetery in its early years were those killed in the Civil War. The cemetery is one of two in the United States that is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army, and it is widely considered hallowed ground.  

A statement from the Arlington National Cemetery reiterated: “Federal law prohibits political campaign or election-related activities within Army National Military Cemeteries, to include photographers, content creators or any other persons attending for purposes, or in direct support of a partisan political candidate's campaign. Arlington National Cemetery reinforced and widely shared this law and its prohibitions with all participants. We can confirm there was an incident, and a report was filed.”

Republican vice presidential candidate Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio first said there was a “little disagreement” at the cemetery, but in Erie, Pennsylvania, today he tried to turn the incident into an attack on Harris. “She wants to yell at Donald Trump because he showed up?” Vance said. “She can go to hell.” Harris has not, in fact, commented on the controversy. 

VoteVets, a progressive organization that works to elect veterans to office, called the Arlington episode “sickening.”

In an interview with television personality Dr. Phil that aired last night, Trump suggested that Democrats in California each got seven ballots and that he would win in the state if Jesus Christ counted the votes. As Philip Bump of the Washington Post pointed out today, Trump has always said he could not lose elections unless there was fraud; last night he suggested repeatedly that God wants him to win the 2024 election.  

When asked his opinion of Vice President Harris, Trump once again called her “a Marxist,” a reference that would normally be used to refer to someone who agrees with the basic principles outlined by nineteenth-century philosopher Karl Marx in his theory of how society works. In Marx’s era, people in the U.S. and Europe were grappling with what industrialization would mean for the relationship between individual workers, employers, resources, and society. Marx believed that there was a growing conflict between workers and capitalists that would eventually lead to a revolution in which workers would take over the means of production—factories, farms, and so on—and end economic inequality.

Harris has shown no signs of embracing this philosophy, and on August 15, when Trump talked at reporters for more than an hour at his Bedminster property in front of a table with coffee and breakfast cereal at what was supposed to be a press conference on the economy, he said of his campaign strategy: “All we have to do is define our opponent as being a communist or a socialist or somebody that’s going to destroy our country.” 

Trump uses “Marxist,” “communist,” and “socialist” interchangeably, and when he and his allies accuse Democrats of being one of those things, they are not talking about an economic system in which the people, represented by the government, take control of the means of production. They are using a peculiarly American adaptation of the term “socialist.”

True socialism has never been popular in America. The best it has ever done in a national election was in 1912, when labor organizer Eugene V. Debs, running for president as a Socialist, won 6% of the vote, coming in behind Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and William Howard Taft. 

What Republicans mean by "socialism" in America is a product of the years immediately after the Civil War, when African American men first got the right to vote. Eager to join the economic system from which they had previously been excluded, these men voted for leaders who promised to rebuild the South, provide schools and hospitals (as well as prosthetics for veterans, a vital need in the post-war U.S.), and develop the economy with railroads to provide an equal opportunity for all men to rise to prosperity. 

Former Confederates loathed the idea of Black men voting almost as much as they hated the idea of equal rights. They insisted that the public programs poorer voters wanted were simply a redistribution of wealth from prosperous white men to undeserving Black Americans who wanted a handout, although white people would also benefit from such programs. Improvements could be paid for only with tax levies, and white men were the only ones with property in the Reconstruction South. Thus, public investments in roads and schools and hospitals would redistribute wealth from propertied men to poor people, from white men to Black people. It was, opponents said, “socialism.” Poor black voters were instituting, one popular magazine wrote, "Socialism in South Carolina" and should be kept from the polls.

This idea that it was dangerous for working people to participate in government caught on in the North as immigrants moved into growing cities to work in the developing factories. Like their counterparts in the South, they voted for roads and schools, and wealthy men insisted these programs meant a redistribution of wealth through tax dollars. They got more concerned still when a majority of Americans began to call for regulation to keep businessmen from gouging consumers, polluting the environment, and poisoning the food supply (the reason you needed to worry about strangers and candy in that era was that candy was often painted with lead paint).

Any attempt to regulate business would impinge on a man's liberty, wealthy men argued, and it would cost tax dollars to hire inspectors. Thus, they said, it was a redistribution of wealth. Long before the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia brought the fears of a workers' government to life, Americans argued that their economy was under siege by socialists. Their conviction did indeed lead to a redistribution of wealth, but as regular Americans were kept from voting, the wealth went dramatically upward, not down.

The powerful formula linking racism to the idea of an active government and arguing that a government that promotes infrastructure, provides a basic social safety net, and regulates business is socialism has shaped American history since Reconstruction. In the modern era the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision of 1954 enabled wealthy men to convince voters that their tax dollars were being taken from them to promote the interests of Black Americans. President Ronald Reagan made that formula central to the Republican Party, and it has lived there ever since, as Republicans call any policy designed to help ordinary Americans “socialism.”

Vice President Harris recently said she would continue the work of the Biden administration and crack down on the price-fixing, price gouging, and corporate mergers that drove high grocery prices in the wake of the pandemic. Such plans have been on the table for a while: Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) noted last year that from July 2020 through July 2022, inflation rose by 14% and corporate profits rose by 75%. He backed a measure introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)—who came up with the idea of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—that would set standards to prevent large corporations from price gouging during an “exceptional market shock” like a power grid failure, a public health emergency, a natural disaster, and so on. Harris’s proposal was met with pushback from opponents saying that such a law would do more harm than good and that post-pandemic high inflation was driven by the market.

Yesterday, during testimony for an antitrust case, an email from the senior director for pricing at the grocery giant Kroger, Andy Groff, to other Kroger executives seemed to prove that those calling out price gouging were at least in part right. In it, Groff wrote: “On milk and eggs, retail inflation has been significantly higher than cost inflation.” 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[poppletonink]

Jess Mariano: An Inspired Reading Recommendations List

Please Kill Me: The Uncensored Oral History Of Punk by Legs McNeil and Gillian McCain

On The Road by Jack Kerouac

Sweet Dreams: The Story Of The New Romantics by Dylan Jones

Pride And Prejudice by Jane Austen

The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway

We Owe You Nothing, Punk Planet: The Collected Interviews by Daniel Sinker

Factotum by Charles Bukowski

The Green Mile by Stephen King

Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut

Why Bowie Matters by Will Brooker

A Light that Never Goes Out: The Enduring Saga of the Smiths by Tony Fletcher

The Tell-Tale Heart by Edgar Allan Poe

1984 by George Orwell

Punk Avenue: The New York City Underground 1972-1982 by Phil Marcade

Emma by Jane Austen

Neverwhere by Neil Gaiman

The Catcher In The Rye by J.D. Salinger

Howl and Other Poems by Allen Ginsberg

The Old Man And The Sea by Ernest Hemingway

Daisy Jones & The Six by Taylor Jenkins Reid

[brokehorrorfan]

Dark Night of the Scarecrow and Dark Night of the Scarecrow 2 will be released together on 4K Ultra HD and Blu-ray on September 10 via VCI Entertainment.

Dark Night of the Scarecrow is a 1981 made-for-TV horror movie directed by Frank De Felitta and written by J.D. Feigelson. Larry Drake, Charles Durning, Tonya Crowe, Jocelyn Brando, and Lane Smith.

Dark Night of the Scarecrow 2 is a 2022 sequel written and directed by J.D. Feigelson. Amber Wedding, Aiden Shurr, Carol Dines, Adam Snyder, and Tim Gooch star.

Special features are listed below.

Special features:

Dark Night of the Scarecrow audio commentary by writer J.D. Feigelson (new)

Dark Night of the Scarecrow audio commentary by film historians Heath Holland, Robert Kell, and Amanda Reyes (new)

Dark Night of the Scarecrow audio commentary by director Frank DeFelitta and writer J.D. Feigelson

Bubba Didn't Do It: 30 Years of the Scarecrow featurette

Dark Night of the Scarecrow cast reunion Q&A at Frightfest 2011

1981 CBS world premier promo

1985 CBS re-broadcast promo

Photo gallery

Dark Night of the Scarecrow tells of the murder of a young girl, Marylee Williams (Tonya Crowe), and the vicious mob justice wrongly enacted on Marylee’s innocent, mentally challenged friend Bubba Ritter (Larry Drake). A cover-up by the murderous mob, led by Otis P. Hazelrigg (Charles Durning), results in a strange turn of events. Soon, one by one, the guilty are stalked and served a specific kind of justice by an unknown figure.

40 years in the making, Dark Night of the Scarecrow 2 picks up with Chris (Amber Wedding) and her young son Jeremy (Aiden Shurr), moving to the small town where the events of the first film took place. Chris finds a tattered scarecrow amongst the cornfields of her new home and tells the effigy her secret; the real reason she has come to this small town. Soon after, a mysterious figure begins to roam the fields of their new home… stalking them or protecting them from unknown threats?

Pre-order Dark Night of the Scarecrows 1 & 2.

[iscariotten]

whybesadbehigh on tiktok // The Smiths // Kelsey Landsgaard // J.D. McLatchy // The Stone Roses // Lorde // Frank O’Hara // Michael Cunningham // Sylvia Plath // Taylor Swift