#U.S. Representative Summer Lee

[allurlsaregone-blog]

[commiepinkofag]

Democrat Drops Senate Run to Challenge Cori Bush Over Her Support of Palestine

Instead of seeking to unseat far right Sen. Josh Hawley, the Democrat is zeroing in on a progressive in the House.

📷 Celal Gunes | Rep. Cori Bush, October 18, 2023 demonstration advocating for ceasefire in Gaza.

…

Excerpt from Sharon Zhang/Truthout [cc]

Missouri Democrat [Wesley Bell] announced this week that he is giving up a months-long run to unseat outspoken far right Republican Sen. Josh Hawley — in order to stage a primary challenge to progressive Democrat Rep. Cori Bush, citing her support of Palestinians amid Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

In the Senate race, Bell had the opportunity to oust one of the most outspoken right-wing members of the chamber. Hawley is perhaps most well known for his salute to Donald Trump militants on the January 6, 2021, attempted coup, and Democrats have cited him as a key figure in inciting the militants that day.

Instead, Bell is zeroing in on primarying one of the most consistently progressive and left-wing lawmakers in Congress — one who has garnered praise for being one of only about a dozen lawmakers advocating for Palestinians in the past weeks and years.

…

Bush isn’t the only progressive critic of Israel who’s facing a primary challenge next year. Representatives Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) and Summer Lee (D-Pennsylvania) are also facing challengers who have cited their support of Israel as a reason for the challenge, while another New York Democrat is citing Israel as a reason he may run against Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D).

These primary challenges will likely have strong support from AIPAC, a pro-Israel PAC that has spent millions on opposing progressive pro-Palestine candidates…

Bush and Ocasio-Cortez have spoken out against AIPAC this week.

“AIPAC endorsed scores of Jan 6th insurrectionists. They are no friend to American democracy,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote on social media on Tuesday. “They are one of the more racist and bigoted PACs in Congress as well, who disproportionately target members of color. They are an extremist organization that destabilizes U.S. democracy.”

“Speak on it, sis. AIPAC’s dark money grift & anti-democracy propping up of insurrectionists are attempts to undermine the will of the people,” Bush wrote in a response. “They spread lies, distort truth, and spend millions of dollars targeting Black and brown elected officials working to end hate & injustice.”

aka Right-wing / MAGA / AIPAC / Democrat strategy to maintain power

Biden has already lost a great deal of support in the Muslim / Arab communities for his hugging support of Israel.

[fruitymarcy]

18 Representatives out of 435 Representatives and 100 Senators.

That's how many U.S. Congresspeople support a ceasefire in occupied Palestine. That's how few of our leaders want peace. 18 Representatives and 0 Senators. Not even Bernie Sanders, the most progressive Senator, who campaigned for President on stopping endless wars, supports a ceasefire. Likelihood is, all of your elected representatives support Israel's genocide of the Palestinian people.

It is abhorrent, and yet not surprising, that the leaders of the United States have still not learned from this country's genocidal history. In fact, the people of the United States support a ceasefire even as our elected representatives do not:

A Data for Progress national poll conducted from October 18-19 found that 66 percent of voters in the U.S. support a ceasefire and de-escalation of violence in Gaza. Specifically, 80 percent of Democratic voters support a ceasefire, 57 percent of Independent or third party voters support a ceasefire, and 56 percent of Republican voters support a ceasefire. Americans support a ceasefire.

Ask yourself, why aren't our representatives following the will of the people who voted for them?

The only Representatives who support a ceasefire are:

Cori Bush

Jonathan Jackson

Jamaal Bowman

André Carson

Jesús "Chuy" García

Summer Lee

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Ilhan Omar

Ayanna Pressley

Delia Ramirez

Rashida Tlaib

Nydia Velázquez

Bonnie Watson Coleman

Gregorio Casar

Pramila Jayapal

Barbara Lee

Alma Adams

Maxwell Frost

Those Representatives are the ones who actually care about the lives of innocent Palestinians and who are actually listening to their voters. If your Representative is not on this list, take that into account when the 2024 primaries and general election come around. Your Senators are all not on this list, so take that into account as well. "Vote blue no matter who" and attitudes like that don't make your representatives work for you, because they know they have your votes anyway.

If you want your representatives to fight for the Palestinian people's freedom, then you must push them to. Tell them to support Palestine, and if they won't, then elect people who will. The vocal support for Palestine on social media is important, but voting accordingly would do even more to push the United States to end its support of Israel. At the end of the day, the United States is Israel's most powerful ally, and without U.S. support it would be much harder for them to continue their genocide.

Free Palestine.

[mariacallous]

According to recent U.S. government estimates, approximately 315,000 Russian soldiers have either been killed or wounded in the ongoing war in Ukraine. In comparison, Kyiv has lost a smaller number of troops than that on the battlefield—as many as 200,000—but has probably suffered just as many overall losses when civilian casualties from Russia’s indiscriminate bombardments and shellings are taken into account. The pace of the bloodshed in 2023 appears, by the best unclassified estimates, to have been similar to that of 2022.

For some, these numbers would suggest that Ukraine, with only about 1/4 the population of Russia within its borders today, cannot achieve victory or even sustain this conflict much longer. As a BBC journalist put it flatly, “time is not on Ukraine’s side.” Reports of corruption within military recruiting commands have intensified concerns, prompting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to replace many of his senior military recruiters this past year in response. By November 2023, after 20 months of fighting, the average age of a Ukrainian soldier had risen to around 43 years old—a stark shift from the average age of 30 to 35 years old just one month into the conflict in March 2022.

Ukraine is now considering lowering its minimum draft age from 27 to 25 and whether it should try to grow its nearly million-strong military by an additional 50%. Ideally, the proposed mobilization could break the current military stalemate in 2024 or 2025, while also allowing some of those who have been on the frontlines over the last two years, to get a break or finally conclude their service and return home to their families.

Our reading of the demographics and of military history suggests that Ukraine does indeed have a serious problem on its hands. Demographic trends aren’t in Ukraine’s favor and wavering Western support casts a huge cloud. Yet, despite these challenges, Ukraine is not facing an acute and immediate manpower crisis and is not at short-to-medium-term risk of losing the war due to a hollowed-out army.

It’s crucial to acknowledge that troops and society-as-a-whole, are exhibiting signs of fatigue. Yet tiredness must not be misconstrued as readiness to surrender, nor should lower morale be mistaken for irresoluteness. This is not the moment to make Ukraine’s projected long-term challenges a self-fulfilling prophecy of defeat.

Consider some analogies from past wars. By summer 1864, Union troops in the American Civil War were due to reach the end of their three-year enlistments en masse. General Sherman had yet to take Atlanta; Generals Meade and Grant were losing battles to General Lee on a regular basis. Relative to Ukraine’s current plight, Union forces represented twice as large a share of the nation’s population and were suffering fatalities at roughly five times the annual rate per capita. As historian Bruce Catton wrote of the nation’s military manpower system, “Once it brought in the country’s best men, and now it brought in the worst.” Yet the Union prevailed.

In World War I, a conflict of which the current Ukraine war evokes memories for many, loss rates for each of the major parties were several hundred thousand fatalities a year—roughly ten times greater than in the current catastrophe. Yet no major military started to break until three years into the struggle. No one is wishing a similar fate upon Ukrainians or even Russians today. Nevertheless, the capacity for human resolve in the face of immense suffering should not be underestimated, especially when the cause is just, and national survival is at stake.

Kyiv does not disclose official troop or casualty numbers, but Ukraine is believed to have raised nearly one million troops out of a population of about 37 million (excluding refugees who have left the country) by relying on volunteer fighters and a draft that includes healthy men between the ages of 27 and 60. Meanwhile, it has been losing about 100,000 troops per year as casualties. Sustaining the force at its current size—or even enlarging it—will likely not be possible absent a change in policy.

Approximately 215,000 Ukrainian men will turn 27 this upcoming year. However, many of the most qualified individuals have already volunteered, while many others have health issues or nationally required professional specialties that preclude service. And yes, some will try to game the system to avoid service, as we have seen in most of America’s wars, too (even the most righteous, like the Revolution and Civil War). Considering these factors, Ukraine will most likely struggle to find 50,000 recruits this upcoming year, based on past trends.

But the situation is a far cry from the prospect of imminent defeat. Kiev has options. Lower the draft age to 25, as officially proposed in a draft bill by the Ukrainian cabinet. This change could potentially render up to 395,000 men turning 25 and 26 this coming year eligible to be conscripted, in addition to the approximately 215,000 Ukrainian men turning 27. Lowering the draft age to 21 would make approximately 685,000 more men potentially eligible and lowering it to 18 another 490,000. Create more incentives for women to join. Address claims of mistreatment of soldiers. And, if Western aid will support it, pay troops better so as to increase the proclivity to serve (we do not consider it inappropriate to employ such tools within America’s own military, nor should the Ukrainians). With such steps, Ukraine could, if necessary, sustain the current fight through the decade.

None of this is to suggest Ukraine should fight this war indefinitely, of course, and at some point, Ukrainians may decide that an imperfect peace (if negotiable with Russia) is preferable to more carnage. But in a fight for Ukrainian national survival, we should be reticent to make that judgment for them just yet. And nothing about core demographic fundamentals suggests they should feel forced to reach it themselves anytime soon.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

[Clay Jones]

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

March 30, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

MAR 31, 2024

On Tuesday morning, on his social media outlet, former president Trump encouraged his supporters to buy a “God Bless The USA” Bible for $59.99. The Bible is my “favorite book,” he said in a promotional video, and said he owns “many.” This Bible includes the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Pledge of Allegiance. It also includes the chorus of country music singer Lee Greenwood’s song “God Bless the USA,” likely because it is a retread of a 2021 Bible Greenwood pushed to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of 9-11.

That story meant less coverage for the news from last Monday, March 25, in which Trump shared on his social media platform a message comparing him to Jesus Christ, with a reference to Psalm 109, which calls on God to destroy one’s enemies.  

This jumped out to me because Trump is not the first president to compare himself to Jesus Christ. In 1866, President Andrew Johnson famously did, too. While there is a financial component to Trump’s comparison that was not there for Johnson, the two presidents had similar political reasons for claiming a link to divine power.

Johnson was born into poverty in North Carolina, then became a tailor in Tennessee, where he rose through politics to the U.S. House of Representatives and then the Senate. In 1861, when Tennessee left the Union, Johnson was the only sitting senator from a Confederate state who remained loyal to the United States. This stand threw him into prominence. In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln named him the military governor of Tennessee. 

Then, in 1864, the Republican Party renamed itself the Union Party to attract northern Democrats to its standard. To help that effort, party leaders chose a different vice president, replacing a staunch Republican—Hannibal Hamlin of Maine—with the Democrat Johnson.

Although he was elected on what was essentially a Republican ticket, Johnson was a Democrat at heart. He loathed the elite southern enslavers he thought had become oligarchs in the years before the Civil War, shutting out poorer men like him from prosperity, but he was a fervent racist who enslaved people himself until 1863. Johnson opposed the new active government the Republicans had built during the war, and he certainly didn’t want it to enforce racial equality. He expected that the end of the war would mean a return to the United States of 1860, minus the system of enslavement that concentrated wealth upward. 

Johnson was badly out of step with the Republicans, but a quirk of timing gave him exclusive control of the reconstruction of the United States from April 15, 1865, when he took the oath of office less than three hours after Lincoln breathed his last, until early December. Congress had adjourned for the summer on March 4, expecting that Lincoln would call the members back together if there were an emergency, as he had in summer 1861. It was not due to reconvene until early December. Members of Congress rushed back to Washington, D.C., after Lincoln’s assassination, but Johnson insisted on acting alone.

Over the course of summer 1865, Johnson set out to resuscitate the prewar system dominated by the Democratic Party, with himself at its head. He pardoned all but about 1,500 former Confederates, either by proclamation or by presidential pardon, putting them back into power in southern society. He did not object when southern state legislatures developed a series of state laws, called Black Codes, remanding Black Americans into subservience.

When Congress returned to work on December 4, 1865, Johnson greeted the members with the happy news that he had “restored” the Union. Leaving soldiers in the South would have cost tax money, he said, and would have “envenomed hatred” among southerners. His exclusion of Black southerners from his calculus, although they were the most firmly loyal population in the South, showed how determined he was to restore prewar white supremacy, made possible by keeping power in the states. All Republican congressmen had to do, he said, was to swear in the southern senators and representatives now back in Washington, D.C., and the country would be “restored.”

Republicans wanted no part of his “restoration.” Not only did it return to power the same men who had been shooting at Republicans’ constituents eight months before and push northerners’ Black fellow soldiers to a form of quasi-enslavement, but also the 1870 census would count Black Americans as whole people rather than three fifths of a person, giving former Confederates more national political power after the war than they had had before it. Victory on the battlefields would be overturned by control of Congress.

Congressional Republicans rejected Johnson’s plan for reconstruction. Instead, they passed the Fourteenth Amendment  in June 1866 and required the former Confederate states to ratify it before they could be readmitted to the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment put the strength of the national government behind the idea that Black Americans would be considered citizens—as the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott decision had denied. Then it declared that states could neither discriminate against citizens nor take away a citizen’s rights without due process of the law. To make sure that the 1870 census would not increase the power of former Confederates, it declared that if any state kept men over 21 from voting, its representation in Congress would be reduced proportionally. 

Johnson hated the Fourteenth Amendment. He hated its broad definition of citizenship; he hated its move toward racial equality; he hated its undermining of the southern leaders he backed; he hated its assertion of national power; he hated that it offered a moderate route to reunification that most Americans would support. If states ratified it, he wouldn’t be able to rebuild the Democratic Party with himself at its head. 

So he told southern politicians to ignore Congress’s order to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, calling Congress an illegal body because it had not seated representatives from the southern states. He promised white southerners that the Democrats would win the 1866 midterm elections. Once back in power, he said, Democrats would repudiate the Republicans’ “radicalism” and put his plan back into place. 

As he asserted his vision for the country, Johnson egged on white supremacist violence. In July, white mobs attacked a Unionist convention in New Orleans where delegates had called for taking the vote away from ex-Confederates and giving it to loyal Black men. The rioters killed 37 Black people and 3 white delegates to the convention. 

By then, Johnson had become as unpopular as his policies. Increasingly isolated, he defended his plan for the nation as the only true course. In late August he broke tradition to campaign in person, an act at the time considered beneath the dignity of a president. He set off on a railroad tour, known as the “Swing Around the Circle,” to whip up support for the Democrats before the election. 

Speaking from the same set of notes as the train stopped at different towns and cities from Washington, D.C., to New York, to Chicago, to St. Louis, and back to Washington, D.C., Johnson complained bitterly about the opposition to his reconstruction policies, attacked specific members of Congress as traitors and called for them to be hanged, and described himself as a martyr like Lincoln. And, noting the mercy of his reconstruction policies, he compared himself to Jesus.  

It was all too much for voters. The white supremacist violence across the South horrified them, returning power to southern whites infuriated them, the reduction of Black soldiers to quasi-slaves enraged them, and Johnson’s attacks on Congress alarmed them. Johnson seemed determined to hand the country over to its former enemies to recreate the antebellum world that northerners had just poured more than 350,000 lives and $5 billion into destroying, no matter what voters wanted. 

Johnson’s extremism and his supporters’ violence created a backlash. Northerners were not willing to hand the country back to the Democrats who were rioting in the South and to a president who compared himself to Jesus. Rather than turning against the Republicans in the 1866 elections, voters repudiated Johnson. They gave Republicans a two-thirds majority of Congress, enabling them to override any policy Johnson proposed.

And, in 1868, the states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, launching a new era in the history of the United States.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[plethoraworldatlas]

As the leading U.S. pro-Israel lobby's political action committee unleashes a nearly $2 million ad blitz targeting Congressman Jamaal Bowman, Jewish allies of the New York Democrat—who is an outspoken critic of what he and many experts call Israel's genocide in Gaza—on Thursday joined progressive lawmakers in condemning right-wing efforts to defeat pro-Palestine incumbents.

United Democracy Project (UDP), the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) super PAC, has booked $1.9 million in television ads to influence the outcome of the Democratic primary in New York's 16th Congressional District, according to Wednesday reporting by Sludge's David Moore.

"This new ad spending in New York shows once and for all that my opponent, George Latimer, is bankrolled by a right-wing super PAC that has received over $40 million from Republican megadonors who want to defend Republican insurrectionists, overturn voting rights, and ban abortion nationwide," Bowman said in a statement.

"Democrats across New York deserve better, and will reject these attempts to buy our elections and undermine our democracy," he added.

Jews for Jamaal, a pro-Bowman coalition spearheaded by the group Jews for Racial & Economic Justice Action, said in a statement that "we recognize this media blitz for what it is: a desperate move by powerful interests to silence the district's first Black representative in history."

"UDP is overwhelmingly spending its millions in Democratic primaries, mostly against Black and brown Democratic incumbents who speak out against war and for the human rights of Palestinians," the coalition continued. "This massive amount of spending distorts the political landscape, drowning out the needs and voices of everyday constituents with the interests of a few wealthy donors."

"It undermines the very foundation of our democracy, which must be built on the principles of transparency, accountability, and genuine representation," Jews for Jamaal added.

[texasobserver]

From “My Great-Grandfather Was a Racist” by Editor-in-Chief Gabriel Arana, from the September/October 2023 issue of Texas Observer magazine:

My great-grandfather, José-María Arana, was a racist. 

After the United States barred Chinese men from immigrating under the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, tens of thousands sought a new life in Mexico, where they faced no warmer a welcome as they established themselves. A former schoolteacher and businessman, José-María led a vicious campaign against the Chinese in the Mexican states of Sonora, Sinaloa, and Baja California in the early 1900s.  

Seeking “all legal means to eliminate the Asian merchant,” whose growing prosperity he viewed as a threat to the working class and Mexican national identity, José-María formed a junta of local businessmen in 1912 to address what he called “the tremendous calamity of the Chinese jaundice.” He launched a newspaper, Pro-Patria, whose masthead boldly proclaimed, “Mexico for the Mexicans and China for the Chinese.” Featuring racist jokes and caricatures, the broadsheet portrayed Chinese immigrants as carriers of disease and a threat to Mexican women. 

“We cannot live together because there exists an absolute incompatibility in race, social customs, and economy,” José-María wrote in its pages. 

My great-grandfather carried his message throughout Northern Mexico, making speeches in working-class towns like Cananea—whose poor copper miners he thought ripe for radicalization—and urging city and state leaders to restrict the types of businesses that Chinese immigrants could run, relegate them to ghettos, and expel them de manera definitiva [in a definitive way]. 

I’ve thought increasingly about my great-grandfather and his ignoble legacy as I’ve settled into life in Texas, where the Confederate cause is memorialized on statues, flags, and street signs. Growing up on the U.S.-Mexico border in Nogales, Arizona—where José-María’s widow, my great-grandmother, settled after his death in 1921—I knew little about my family tree’s racist roots. Like a lot of gay kids who come from a small town, I left to find people like me in bigger cities and only much later started to contemplate my origins.

Afew months after moving here in the summer of 2022, I visited the Capitol grounds with my in-laws from London. The Texas State Capitol is an imposing Renaissance revival structure made of pink granite with a dome that, Texans remind you, is taller than the U.S. Capitol. But what impressed us all the most on that first visit was the enormous Confederate Soldiers Monument on the right as one walks up to the entrance from 11th Street. 

Chinese immigrants sent José-María postcards with derisive poems in Spanish. Translation: Of your attacks I laugh / and you even give me compassion / And it makes me neither hot nor cold / your ridiculous oration. / And they say from Grand China / that you're gotten involved with the dance / with your gross propaganda / to fill your belly. —Ju Kun Lee

A bronze statue of Confederate President Jefferson Davis stands atop one of five pillars, the other four support figures representing the branches of the Confederate military. The inscription on the pedestal below commemorates the 437,000 soldiers who “died for states [sic] rights guaranteed under the Constitution” and asserts that “the People of the South, animated by the spirit of 1776, to preserve their rights, withdrew from the federal compact.” 

“It’s Texas,” I said preemptively, feeling defensive and embarrassed at the same time as my in-laws looked on in horror. It’s the same way I feel when an outsider mentions the state’s abortion ban or attacks on LGBTQ+ people. 

The Confederate Soldiers Monument is one of 12 memorials on the grounds that perpetuate the “lost cause”—the historical myth that the Confederate cause was heroic and not about slavery. 

Read more at the Texas Observer.

Images courtesy of the Special Collections at the University of Arizona Library.

[so-much-for-subtlety]

cw: trump, politics, rambling

it’s Iowa republikkkan caucus today (they forgot it is Martin Luther King Jr. day today) and this year will be my first time voting in prez elections (I submitted my citizenship application on MLK day 2020 which with pre-pandemic timelines would have got me enrolled in time but then pandemic hit

this weekend at farmers market I was getting my eggs & apples and I saw a cute guy carrying a fluffy mini dog who I would have clocked as a twink (my gaydar is still recalibrating to United States) except he was wearing a Latinos for Trump snapback and also it was so weather beaten and oil stained that you could tell he’s probably worn it most days for the last 8+ years.

one of the themes that have come up in therapy has been my desire to control my life and to understand it, and the conflict that can come from existing in an uncontrollable, unpredictable, and incomprehensible world.

it’s kind of funny but before 2016 I was so politically ignorant, I didn’t even really understand how U.S. government was structured and functioned. my naive political views were that the democratic and republican party were not so different from each other, then 2016 happened and I saw the GOP as the evil nemesis and democrats as our hero. now I’ve come full circle and see the two parties are more similar than different (but yes I will still vote, and yes trump reelected will be much MUCH worse than Biden, but I can be critical of Biden and still vote for the old bozo).

back in summer of 2017 I was in a bedstuy which is a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood in Brooklyn (Spike Lee’s “do the right thing” etc) and after 5 summers in my apartment had finally decided to get a window AC unit and went to local Home Depot. There are always guys with trucks in the parking lot that you can pay to lug stuff back to your place and this Black guy helped me with my AC. It was sooo funny because driving back he kept trying to trick me into admitting that I’d voted for trump (like he’d ask “so why did you vote for trump?”) and it took so much to convince him that I hadn’t voted (and if I had i absolutely wouldn’t have voted trump) we laughed about it and a couple times over the next few weeks he’d drive past me walking in the neighborhood and yell out “hey trump!” and wave to me lol.

so this election season I’m not going to engage, I’ve already taken a step back from social media (tumblr is only remaining place that I’m active), so I’m not going to post reminders to check voter registration, post the “I voted” selfie etc. my social circle is so homogenous - there’s no one I have to convince or influence.

im feeling pretty disillusioned about our political system, I don’t really feel that our government really does represent us as the people. Protests don’t do anything. Whatever happens will happen.

[normanthedove]

CONGRESSWOMAN SUMMER LEE(D), PA., 12th DISTRICT TAKES AIM "WESTWORLD STYLE," AT BIAS FROM ARTIFICIAL STUPIDITY (AS) IN HEALTHCARE GENERATED BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) WITH LANDMARK LEGISLATION [AI(alg*)=AS)

Summer Lee, a trailblazer in Pennsylvania politics and a rising voice in the U.S. Congress, is once again making history. The first Black woman from Pennsylvania elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, Lee has introduced the Eliminating Bias in Algorithmic Systems Act of 2024 (H.R. 10092). Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Pennsylvania's 12th district This bold legislation seeks to tackle the systemic inequities perpetuated by artificial intelligence (AI) and algori

NORMAN J CLEMENT RPH., DDS, NORMAN L. CLEMENT PHARM-TECH, MALACHI F. MACKANDAL PHARMD, BELINDA BROWN-PARKER, IN THE SPIRIT OF JOSEPH SOLVO ESQ., INC.T. SPIRIT OF REV. IN THE SPIRIT OF WALTER R. CLEMENT BS., MS, MBA. HARVEY JENKINS MD, PH.D., IN THE SPIRIT OF C.T. VIVIAN, JELANI ZIMBABWE CLEMENT, BS., MBA., IN THE SPIRIT OF THE HON. PATRICE LUMUMBA, IN THE SPIRIT OF ERLIN CLEMENT SR., EVELYN J.…

[talksthesuccess]

USA’s Role In Paris Olympics 2024

USA’s Role In Paris Olympics 2024 – The Summer Olympics Games 2024 is going on in France. So the world’s greatest athletes from various nations prepare to showcase their exceptional skills and dedication on the grand stage of the highly anticipated 2024 Paris Olympic Games.

The U.S.A. currently dominates the bar of medals and has gathered many medals such as gold, silver, and bronze. Athletes from this country are crowning their nation through these medals. The U.S.A. has won 79 medals, continuously leading this Olympic 2024. All the athletes are showcasing their dedication, determination, and devotion towards their games and their nation.

Alongside rooting for their favorite athletes and countries, fans will undoubtedly engage in discussions and debates, pondering which nation will emerge victorious by accumulating the highest tally of medals, hence fixing their legacy and demonstrating their supremacy in the sphere of competitive sports.

So, let’s glorify the medal tally of the U.S.A. 

U.S.A. at the Olympic Games 2024 

The United States of America (USA), represented by the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC), is taking part in the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris from July 26 to August 11, 2024. The athletes of the U.S. have glorified their nation in every Summer Olympic Games of the modern era. 

During the exciting opening ceremony, the honor of flag-bearers for the United States was granted to the accomplished athletes LeBron James and Coco Gauff. James, who has proudly won two Olympic gold medals, made history by becoming the first male basketball player selected for this prestigious role. On the other hand, at just 20 years old, Gauff showcased both her talent and youth by being named the youngest American athlete and the first tennis player to lead the team. 

Furthermore, As was observed and expected it has once again emerged that the United States of America’s team comprises more females in the Summer Olympics with 314 female athletes compared to 278 male athletes in the team. 

Medal Tally of USA at Olympics to be held at Paris 2024

Instantaneously, the 2024 Paris Olympics are already proceeding toward the finish line with 10 full days of action in the books. 

It’s been a massive Olympic Games for the United States so far, as they’re ruling the medal count at 79. Athletes are awarded because of their thriving performances. There are many inspiring tales of American athletes. For example, track star Noah Lyles became the fastest man in history when he won the closest 100-meter dash race in 44 years (0.005 seconds), earning his first-ever Olympic gold medal, and breaking records in the pool to become the most decorated American woman athlete ever with nine gold medals and fourteen in her trophy case.

Then there’s Scottie Scheffler, a native of North Jersey and currently the top-ranked golfer in the world, who pulled off a stunning comeback triumph in the Men’s Golf final round by tying the course record and winning the gold medal on Sunday afternoon with a score of 62.

Here is the medal tracker for the 12 countries with double-digit medals, along with an overview of the United States’ current standing and upcoming major events leading up to Sunday night’s Closing Ceremony. Day 10 is almost over.

The United States has become the spotlight because of topping the medal leaderboard a majority of these Olympic Games. So here’s the Summer Olympics medal tally of the USA. 

United States medal tracker has 78 medals (20 gold, 30 silver, and 28 bronze).

Gold Medals winners 

The USA has earned 20 gold medals in the Paris Olympic Games.

Swimming

Chris Guiliano, Abbey Weitzel, Bobby Finke, Katharine Berkoff, Lilly King, Alex Shackell, Emma Weber, Kate Douglas, Nic Fink, Regan Smith, Ryan Murphy, Charlie Swanson, Gretchen Walsh, Jack Alexj Hunter Armstrong, Caeleb Dressel, Ryan Held, Matt King, Torri Huske, Katie Ledecky,  are some of the people who have won gold medals 

Fencing 

Lee kiefer,Jacqueline Dubrovich, Lauren Scruggs, Maia Mei Weintraub 

Artistic Gymnastics

Simone Biles, Sunisa Lee, Jordan Chiles, Jade Carey, and Hezly Rivera have, Simone Biles also showcased their talent 

Rowing 

Michael Grady, Nick Mead, Justin Best, and Liam Corrigan also played very well in Rowing.

Shooting 

Vincent Hancock also successfully represented his nation and was praised with the gold medal for performing in Shooting 

Athletics

Ryan Crouser, Noah Lyles, and Valarie Allman won the medal for performing in Athletics.

Golf 

Kristen Faulkner for Cycling and Scottie Scheffler for Golf have won the taking place in the list of gold medalists.

Silver Medal Winners 

Along with the gold medalist, the US also has the silver medalist, and the players are listed below:

Diving 

Sarah Bacon/ Kassidy Cook is represented in Diving and performed successfully by winning the silver medal.

Swimming

Kate Douglass, Gretchen Walsh. Torri Huske, Simone Manuel, Erika Connolly, Abbey Weitzel, Nic Fink, Regan Smith, Bobby Finke, Carson Foster, Brooks Curry, Chris Guiliano, Luke Hobson, Drew Kibler, Blake Pieroni, Kieran Smith, Torrie Huske, Katie Grimes, Erin Gemmell, Katie Ledecky, Paige Madden, Simone Manuel, Anna Peplowski, Alex Shackell, Claire Weinstein, Kate Douglas and other athletes are gold medalists but also the winners of silver medal in Swimming.

Mountain bike

Mountain bikes are also represented by the Haley Battn which earned the silver medal.

Fencing 

Lauren Scruggs praised with the silver medal for Fencing 

Skateboarding

Jagger Eaton is the silver medal winner in Skateboarding 

Cycling 

Perris Benegas has won the competition of Cycling BMX Freestyle 

Equestrian 

Karl Cook, Laura Kraut, and McLain Ward are performing in Equestrian 

Shooting 

Sagen Maddalena and Conner Lynn Prince have won the Shooting 

Athletics 

Joe Kovacs, Kaylyn Brown, Bryce Deadmon, Sha’Carri Richardson, Shamier Little, Vernon Norwood, and Sha’Carri Richardson have won for Athletics 

Tennis 

Austin Krajicek and Rajeev Ram have won the Tennis 

Archery 

Brady Ellison also won the silver medal for performing in Archery.

Bronze Medals 

Chloe Dygert won for performing in Women’s individual time trial 

Swimming

Katie Ledecky, Carson Foster, Luke Hobson, Ryan Murphy, Emma Weyant, Katherine Berkoff, and Paige Madden  also earned the bronze medal for Swimming 

Skateboarding 

Nyjah Huston won for Skateboarding 

Fencing 

Nick Itkin for Fencing 

Artistic Gymnastics 

Frederick Richard, Brody Malone, Stephen Nedoroscik. Paul Juda, Asher Hong, Sunia Lee, Jade Carey, and Jordan Chiles 

Rugby 7s

Ilona Maher, Kayla Canett, Lauren Doyle, Alev Kelter, Kristi Kirshe, Sarah Levy, Alena Olsen, Ariana Ramsey, Steph Rovetti, Alex Sedrick, Sammy Sullivan, Naya Tapper for Rugby 7s

Canoe 

Evy Leibfarth for Canoe 

Archery

Brady Ellison, Casey Kaufhold

Athletics 

Grant Fisher, Jasmine Moore, Melissa Jefferson, Fred Kerley for Athletics

Sailing

Ian Barrows, Hans Henken for Sailing 

Rowing 

Henry Hollingsworth, Rielly Milne, Evan Olson, Pieter Quinton, Nick Rusher, Chris Carlson, Peter Chatain, Clark Dean, Nick Rusher, Christian Tabash

Tennis

Taylor Fritz, Tommy Paul 

Shooting 

Austen Jewell Smith for Shooting 

3×3 basketball

Cierra Burdick, Dearica Hamby, Rhyne Howard Hailey van Lith

Read More:- Business Risk: A Comprehensive Guide

[ebelal56-blog]

The Birth of Democracy: Uncovering History's Secrets

In the summer of 1787, a group of men gathered in Philadelphia, their minds swirling with ideas that would shape the future of a nation. They were not just delegates; they were visionaries, architects of a bold experiment that would redefine governance. The ratification of the U.S. Constitution was not merely an event; it was the birth of a new identity, a departure from the chains of monarchy that had long shackled the world. It was a moment when the ink on parchment would give rise to a government of the people, by the people, for the people. The Constitution emerged as the supreme law, a blueprint outlining the structure and functions of a government that sought to balance power among its branches. It was a revolutionary concept, one that would prevent tyranny by ensuring that no single entity could dominate the political landscape. The Founding Fathers, figures like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, infused their knowledge of history and political theory into this document, crafting a framework that would accommodate diverse interests and perspectives. Franklin, with his wit and wisdom, navigated the turbulent waters of debate, brokering compromises that would allow the fledgling nation to stand united. His experience as a diplomat, securing French support during the Revolution, lent him a unique insight into the delicate art of negotiation. And then there was Jefferson, a man whose influence loomed large despite his absence from the Constitutional Convention. His words in the Declaration of Independence echoed in the hearts of those gathered, a reminder that the government must be accountable to the people. Jefferson's advocacy for individual rights resonated deeply, shaping the very essence of what this new government would represent. The Constitution was not just a set of rules; it was a promise, a commitment to uphold the ideals of liberty and justice. Yet, the path to ratification was fraught with challenges. The debates were heated, reflecting the diverse interests of the states and factions involved. Issues of representation and federalism ignited passionate discussions, as delegates grappled with the balance of power. The compromises reached were not merely concessions; they were the lifeblood of democracy, ensuring that every voice, every concern, found its place in the grand design. The Lee Resolution, proposed by Richard Henry Lee in 1776, had set the stage for this moment, calling for independence and laying the groundwork for the principles that would soon be enshrined in the Constitution. As the delegates deliberated, they understood that they were embarking on a monumental journey. They were not just drafting a document; they were establishing a legacy that would resonate through the ages. The system of checks and balances they devised was a safeguard against the very tyranny they sought to escape. The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches would serve as a triad of power, each keeping the others in check, ensuring that no single branch could rise above the rest. This intricate dance of power was a testament to their foresight, a recognition that human nature, with all its flaws, required a system that could adapt and endure. The establishment of the U.S. Constitution was indeed a bold experiment, one that would inspire future democratic systems around the globe. It was a declaration that governance could be rooted in the consent of the governed, that the people could wield the power to shape their destiny. The principles of federalism and separation of powers would become cornerstones of American political life, guiding the nation through trials and triumphs alike. As we reflect on that pivotal moment in 1787, we recognize that the Constitution is not just a historical document; it is a living testament to the ideals of democracy. It reminds us that the journey is ongoing, that the responsibility to uphold these principles lies with each generation. The birth of American democracy was not an end, but a beginning-a call to action, a challenge to ensure that the promise of liberty and justice remains alive for all.

[angel0news]

Could Kamala Harris Beat Trump In US Presidential Race? Polls Suggest…

She worries Republican donors, has name recognition, and Democratic Party heavyweights are beginning to line up behind her.

Vice President Kamala Harris would be President Joe Biden's natural successor if he bowed to growing pressure and stepped aside as the Democratic candidate in the 2024 election, top Democrats say.

Now party donors, activists and officials are asking: Does she have a better chance than Biden of beating Donald Trump? Biden is staying in the race, he has said repeatedly.

Harris, 59, a former U.S. senator and California attorney general, would be the first woman to become president of the United States if she were the party's nominee and prevailed in the Nov. 5 election. She is the first African American and Asian person to serve as vice president.

Her three-and-a-half-year White House tenure has been characterized by a lackluster start, staff turnover, and early policy portfolios including migration from Central America that did not produce major successes.

As recently as last year, many inside the White House and the Biden campaign team privately worried Harris was a liability for the campaign. The situation has changed significantly since then, Democratic officials have said, as she stepped forward on abortion rights and courted young voters.

Recent polls suggest Harris could do better than Biden against Trump, the Republican candidate, although she would face a tight contest.

A CNN poll released on July 2 found voters favor Trump over Biden by six percentage points, 49% to 43%. Harris also trailed Trump, 47% to 45%, within the margin of error.

It also found independents back Harris 43%-40% over Trump, and moderate voters of both parties prefer her 51-39%.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll after last week's televised debate between Trump and a faltering Biden found Harris and Trump were nearly tied, with 42% supporting her and 43% backing him.

Only former first lady Michelle Obama, who has never expressed any interest in getting into the race, polled higher among possible alternatives to Biden.

Internal polling shared by the Biden campaign after the debate shows Harris with the same odds as Biden of beating Trump, with 45% of voters saying they would vote for her versus 48% for Trump.

Influential Democrats including U.S. Representative Jim Clyburn, the man who was key to Biden's 2020 win; Rep. Gregory Meeks, a New York congressman and senior member of the Congressional Black Caucus and Summer Lee, a House Democrat from Pennsylvania have signaled Harris would be the best option to lead the ticket if Biden chooses to step aside.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has also privately signaled the same to lawmakers, a Congressional aide said.

Harris is taken so seriously, two Republican donors told Reuters they would prefer for Trump to face Biden than her.

"I would prefer Biden to stay in place" rather than be replaced by Harris, said Pauline Lee, a fundraiser for Trump in Nevada after the June 27 debate, who said she thought Biden had proved himself to be "incompetent."

And some on Wall Street, an important Democratic fundraising center, are starting to indicate a preference.

"Biden is already behind Trump, and is unlikely to be able to overcome that gap given where his campaign is currently. Having VP Harris likely improves Democrats' odds of taking the White House," said Sonu Varghese, global macro strategist at Carson Group, a financial services company, after the debate. "There's potentially more upside for her chances than Biden's at this point."

A majority of Americans see Harris in a negative light, as they do both men running for president.

Polling outlet Five Thirty Eight said 37.1% of voters approve of Harris and 49.6% disapprove. Those numbers compare to 36.9% and 57.1% for Biden, and 38.6% and 53.6% for Trump.

Since the Supreme Court repealed women's constitutional right to abortion in 2022, Harris has become the Biden administration's foremost voice on reproductive rights, an issue Democrats are betting on to help them win the 2024 election.

Some Democrats believe Harris could energize Democratic-leaning groups whose enthusiasm for Biden has faded, including Black voters, young voters and those who do not approve of Biden's handling of the Israel-Hamas war.

"She would energize the Black, brown, and Asian Pacific members of our coalition…she would immediately pull the dispirited youth of our country back into the fold," said Tim Ryan, a former Democratic Congressman from Ohio, in a recent op-ed.

Democratic and Republican suburban women may also be more comfortable with her then Trump or Biden, he said.

As vice president, Harris's public Israel strategy is identical to Biden's, although she was the first senior leader of the U.S. government to call for a ceasefire in March.

"Simply swapping out the candidate does not address the central concern" of the movement, said Abbas Alawieh, a member of the national "Uncommitted" movement that withheld votes for Biden in the primary based on his support of Israel.

If Biden were to step aside, there could be a competition between other Democrats to become the nominee.

If the party were then to choose another candidate over Harris, some Democrats say it could lose the support of many Black voters who were critical to Biden's election win in 2020.

"There is no alternative besides Kamala Harris," said Adrianne Shropshire, executive director of Black voter outreach group BlackPAC.

"If the Democratic Party thinks that they have problems now with their base being confused… Jump over the Black woman, the vice president, and I don't think the Democratic Party actually recovers."

However, Harris may struggle to reel in moderate Democrats and the independent voters who like Biden's centrist policies, some Democratic donors said. Both parties seek independents to help pull them over the finishing line in presidential elections.

"Her greatest weakness is that her public brand has been associated with the far left wing of the Democratic Party … and the left wing of the Democratic party cannot win a national election," said Dmitri Mehlhorn, a fundraiser and adviser to LinkedIn co-founder and Democratic megadonor Reid Hoffman. "That is the challenge that she will have to overcome if she is the nominee."

Harris would take over money raised by the Biden campaign and inherit campaign infrastructure, a critical advantage with just four months before election day on Nov. 5.

But any Democratic campaign still needs to raise hundreds of millions of dollars more before November to be successful, strategists say. And there, Harris could be a liability.

"I can tell you we have a really tough time raising money for her" said a source at the Democratic National Committee.

As a presidential candidate ahead of the 2020 election, Harris lagged Biden in raising money. She dropped out of the race in December 2019, the same month her campaign reported $39.3 million in total contributions. Biden's campaign reported $60.9 million in the same period.

However, Biden's campaign raised a record $48 million in the 24 hours after he named Harris as his running mate in 2020.

Harris's prosecutorial background could shine in a head-to-head debate against Trump, some Democrats said.

"She is incredibly focused and forceful and smart, and if she prosecutes the case against the criminality of Donald Trump, she will rip him apart," said Mehlhorn.

Republican attacks on Harris are ramping up as she has been floated as a possible Biden replacement. Conservative talking heads are re-circulating criticism leveled at her during the 2020 race, including from some Democrats, that Harris laughs too much, that she is untested, and unqualified.

Kelly Dittmar, a political science professor at Rutgers University, said the attacks are part of a long history of objectifying and denigrating women of color in politics.

"Unfortunately the reliance on both racist and sexist attacks and tropes against women running for office is historically common and persists to this day," said Dittmar.

[coprelawland]

How Morrison v. National Australia Bank Set a New Legal Precedent Towards Anti-Fraud Regulations

By Summer Lee, University of Colorado Boulder Class of 2023

December 12, 2023

Morrison v. National Australia Bank is a landmark case that changed the legal precedent previously set by lower U.S. district courts regarding anti-fraud laws. The lawsuit began after National Australia Bank purchased Homeside Lending company in 1998. Following the purchase of Homeside Lending and write-downs on its assets, the value of National Australia Bank’s shares decreased. This caused the petitioner party, Australian purchasers of the National Australia Bank’s shares, to file a lawsuit against the company in 2001. The petitioner party filed the lawsuit on the grounds that the company inaccurately represented the value of its mortgage-servicing rights. For this reason, the petitioner party claimed that the write-downs violated two U.S. anti-fraud regulations:  Articles 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Securities and Exchange Act, along with Rule 10b-5 of the SEC Rule. In response, the National Australia Bank appealed to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure to argue that the case lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and should be dismissed by the Second Circuit of the U.S. District Court [1]. 

As a result, the District Court initially agreed that they did not have subject-matter jurisdiction and approved the respondent’s request to dismiss the case. The decision was made based on a conduct and effect test, which was used to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction was applicable. During a conduct test, the court had to decide if domestic actions (i.e., the actions of U.S. companies) has caused direct losses to the petitioner parties. The court had to also consider if the U.S.’s jurisdiction in the case would help disincentivize instances of fraud towards the investors involved. The effects test was then used to decide if the fraud which occurred outside of the U.S. significantly impacted U.S. citizens or the market [2].  Despite the decision of the District Court, the petitioner party appealed the case, and it was eventually submitted to the U.S Supreme Court. 

Purchasers of National Australia Bank’s shares submitted an appeal to the District Court. They also argued that the conduct and effects test mentioned by the District Court in fact supported their claims. The party explained that since the Homeside Lending company is based in the U.S., the write-down of the company’s assets along with the purchaser’s financial losses does fulfill the conditions of the conduct test. In return, the Second Circuit District Court did not approve the appeal because the claims insufficiently supported the conduct test. The Second Circuit District Court argued that the claims were insufficient since the National Australia Bank’s purchase of Homeside Lending was a main contributing factor to the fraud that occurred, there were no claims regarding how the U.S. market or its citizens were affected, and the petitioner party had used a long series of causal claims that attempted to reinforce the relationship between domestic acts of fraud and the damages it has inflicted towards the petitioner party [2].

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s review of the lower division court’s decision, they also declined the petitioner party’s requests in 2010. Contrary to the lower district court’s use of the conduct and effects test in their decision, however, the Supreme Court established a different legal precedent. In regard to the basis of the lower division court’s decision, the Supreme Court argued that the conduct and effects test was an unreliable interpretation of Section 10(b) Securities Exchange Act [3]. Alternatively, the Supreme Court introduced a new interpretation of the regulation through the transactional test, which sought to narrow the scope of Section 10(b) to exchanges on a domestic level. Through the transactional test, the Supreme Court also shifted the focus of the Securities Exchange Act from the origin of fraudulent conduct to U.S. transactions instead [4]. By setting these new legal precedents, the decision limited the number of protections available to investors. The new legal precedent meant that courts are not obligated to act upon other investment claims that involve the conduct and effects test, and that companies may take advantage of the limited fraud liabilities regarding overseas exchanges [2].

______________________________________________________________

Summer Lee is pursuing a B.A. in International Affairs at the University of Colorado Boulder. She is planning to graduate in the Fall of 2023 and pursue a J.D. in international law.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Legal Information Institute. (2010, June 24). Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. (No. 08-1191) 547 F. 3d 167, Affirmed. Supreme Court. https://www.law.cornell.edu/su pct/html/08-1191.ZO.html

[2] Geevarghese, N. M. (2011). A Shocking Loss of Investor Protection: The Implications of Morrison v. National Australia Bank. Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law, 6(1), 235–259. https://doi.org/https://brooklynwork s.brooklaw.edu/bjcfcl/vol6/iss1/9

[3] Gerber, J., Cooper, R., & Bernstein, A. (2020, October 12). Cleary Gottlieb Discusses the Morrison Decision, 10 Years On. The CLS Blue Sky Blog. https://clsbluesky.law.columbia.edu/2020/10/12/cleary-gottlieb-discusses-the-morrison-decision-10-years-on/

[4] Rotman, E. (2021). In Regulating Fraud Across Borders: Internationalised Criminal Law Protection of Capital Markets (pp. 48–52). essay, Bloomsbury Publishing.

[antonio-velardo]

Antonio Velardo shares: Primary Battles Brew Over Progressive Democrats’ Stances on Israel by Jonathan Weisman

By Jonathan Weisman Representative Summer Lee of Pennsylvania, who joined calls for a cease-fire, has become one of several progressive lawmakers facing new pressure from primary challengers. Published: October 29, 2023 at 05:02AM from NYT U.S. https://ift.tt/lpJdSaF via IFTTT

[plethoraworldatlas]

As the leading U.S. pro-Israel lobby's political action committee unleashes a nearly $2 million ad blitz targeting Congressman Jamaal Bowman, Jewish allies of the New York Democrat—who is an outspoken critic of what he and many experts call Israel's genocide in Gaza—on Thursday joined progressive lawmakers in condemning right-wing efforts to defeat pro-Palestine incumbents.

United Democracy Project (UDP), the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) super PAC, has booked $1.9 million in television ads to influence the outcome of the Democratic primary in New York's 16th Congressional District, according to Wednesday reporting by Sludge's David Moore.

"This new ad spending in New York shows once and for all that my opponent, George Latimer, is bankrolled by a right-wing super PAC that has received over $40 million from Republican megadonors who want to defend Republican insurrectionists, overturn voting rights, and ban abortion nationwide," Bowman said in a statement.

"Democrats across New York deserve better, and will reject these attempts to buy our elections and undermine our democracy," he added.

Jews for Jamaal, a pro-Bowman coalition spearheaded by the group Jews for Racial & Economic Justice Action, said in a statement that "we recognize this media blitz for what it is: a desperate move by powerful interests to silence the district's first Black representative in history."

"UDP is overwhelmingly spending its millions in Democratic primaries, mostly against Black and brown Democratic incumbents who speak out against war and for the human rights of Palestinians," the coalition continued. "This massive amount of spending distorts the political landscape, drowning out the needs and voices of everyday constituents with the interests of a few wealthy donors."

"It undermines the very foundation of our democracy, which must be built on the principles of transparency, accountability, and genuine representation," Jews for Jamaal added.

[gillianthecat]

I finally overcame my anxiety and made my three calls! The Jewish Voices for Peace site is very helpful.

Tips:

Have your headphones, or enter your phone number on another device, so that you can look at the script while you talk.

If you have a phone that silences unknown callers, turn that setting off. In Apple phone that option is on the "Phone" settings. (Or maybe you're better at answering those without hanging it up than I am.) I had to re-enter my info to get another call, which was fine!

Remember to press * after every call and not hang up so that the system calls your next representative for you.

But it's ok if you don't! I forgot and hung up after my first call, and so I just looked up my Senators' phone numbers and called them directly, using JVP's script.

You can also just call everyone directly! If you google [your state] senators you'll find their names and links to their websites, which will have phone numbers easily accessible. They may have multiple offices. I called the DC one, but any number is fine. You can find your Representative at https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative

You don't have to be a US citizen to call. If you live in their district you're their constituent.

I'll copy their script below if you want to call separately.

Script

My name is {Your Name}. I am a constituent of {Representative's Name}. I am calling to ask that the Representative add their name to the Ceasefire Now resolution led by Representatives Cori Bush and Rashida Tlaib, regarding the unfolding crisis in Gaza. It is absolutely urgent that the Representative demand a ceasefire, and that they call on Israel to allow humanitarian assistance into Gaza. The only way forward is addressing the root causes of violence: Israeli military occupation and apartheid, and ending U.S. complicity in this oppression.

Important note: If your member of Congress is Cori Bush, Andre Carson, Summer Lee, Delia Ramirez, Rashida Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, Chuy Garcia, Jonathan Jackson, Nydia Velazquez, or Bonnie Watson-Coleman — then please call to thank them! You can simply say that you are a constituent who wants to thank them for introducing and supporting this important Ceasefire Now resolution.

For people in the US, Jewish Voice for Peace has created an easy way to contact your representatives to push them to support Cori Bush’s Ceasefire Now resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire, de-escalation of violence, and urgent humanitarian aid. You put your info in, receive an automated call with a script, and when you’re ready it connects you to your congress member. It takes max 3 minutes.