Jump to content


Resistance Action Items


Recommended Posts

Absolutely - glad it's potentially helpful/motivating to some. I hesitated to start it, but a couple groups I belong to are really organized so it's easy to cut and paste, and honestly we're (HB members) all over the US, so getting people involved reaching out to their local folks can only help.

 

And if I get blowback from some I can take it. :-)

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

**** ACTION DUE BY 2/10 ***

 

Request for your action signing a nation-wide petition for Trump to disclose his conflicts of interest for the Dakota Access Pipeline--a bill sponsored by Elizabeth Warren. If you haven't already seen this petition on MoveOn.org, please sign and forward this to your friends. There is a group coordinating a nation-wide delivery of petitions to every member of Congress on Feb 17. DEADLINE IS FEB 10.

this is link to Sen. Warren's Sen. Warren's Presidential Conflicts of Interest Bill that we are pushing for our Members of Congress to pass
  • Fire 2
Link to comment

 

 

Trump is using the office to benefit his family's bottom line. Calls and boycotts work. Neiman and Nordstrom listened and have taken Ivanka's clothing and shoe line off the shelves. Next target is to get Macy's to do the same.

 

 

Macy's Corporate Office phone number is 513-579-7000 and the executive is Mr. Terry Lundgern. Simply leave him a message stating if he continues to sell her clothing you will not shop at his store and that you will encourage others to do the same as well as cancel their lines of credit. You may also reach out to them via email form at: http://survey.medallia.com/?mcy-tuwyt-store [/quot

Trump is using the office to benefit his family's bottom line. Calls and boycotts work. Neiman and Nordstrom listened and have taken Ivanka's clothing and shoe line off the shelves. Next target is to get Macy's to do the same.

 

 

Macy's Corporate Office phone number is 513-579-7000 and the executive is Mr. Terry Lundgern. Simply leave him a message stating if he continues to sell her clothing you will not shop at his store and that you will encourage others to do the same as well as cancel their lines of credit. You may also reach out to them via email form at: http://survey.medallia.com/?mcy-tuwyt-store

 

It is working ... https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829356871848951809

Regarding this issue above. I do wish Trump would lay off of twitter and all of the personal petty stuff and concentrate on the important stuff. However, wt that said, I must remind people that he is still a father and I understand his desire to defend his daughter and her brand. I think most dads would do the same. And he is not the 1st president to do so. Andrew Jackson had a thing to say about attacks on his family and friends during his administration and more recently, Give them Hell Harry Truman gave one reporter big hell when the reporter attacked Harry's daughter's singing. Truman made Trump look like a snowflake in comparison. Imagine receiving the following letter from the POTUS (I underlined some pretty strong (and funny statements):

 

https://www.trumanlibrary.org/trivia/letter.htm

FAQ: Is the letter on display that Truman wrote in defense of his daughter's singing?

In response to Washington Post Music Critic Paul Hume's December 6, 1950, review of Margaret Truman's singing performance at Constitution Hall, stating,

"Miss Truman is a unique American phenomenon with a pleasant voice of little size and fair quality � (she) cannot sing very well � is flat a good deal of the time�more last night than at any time we have heard her in past years � has not improved in the years we have heard her � (and) still cannot sing with anything approaching professional finish."

President Truman responded with the following letter to Hume:

THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON

Dec. 6, 1950

Mr. Hume:

I've just read your lousy review of Margaret's concert. I've come to the conclusion that you are an "eight ulcer man on four ulcer pay."

It seems to me that you are a frustrated old man who wishes he could have been successful. When you write such poppy-c$%k as was in the back section of the paper you work for it shows conclusively that you're off the beam and at least four of your ulcers are at work.

Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you'll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below!

Pegler, a gutter snipe, is a gentleman alongside you. I hope you'll accept that statement as a worse insult than a reflection on your ancestry.

H.S.T.

Since the letter was sent by President Truman to Mr. Hume, the original letter was in Mr. Hume�s possession, not President Truman�s, and consequently did not come to the Library as part of the President�s papers. Hume sold the letter in 1951, for $3,500. The original letter continued to reside in private hands as part of the Malcom Forbes Estate, where it hung in the family�s New York corporate art galleries. The Estate purchased the letter in 1983, from an unnamed individual for an unnamed, but "substantial" sum. A copy of the letter also hung in the office of President Bill Clinton. In 2002, the letter was puchased by the Harlan Crow Library, a private library at the Highland Park, Texas, estate of Harlan Crow, a real estate businessman.

Link to comment

Yes, thank you very much for putting this together! Thought dudeguyy's post on voicing opposition to Bannon on Sec Council from another thread makes sense here...

 

http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/81433-trumps-cabinet/page-13&do=findComment&comment=1814331

 

Word is that Deb Fischer is on the fence. I'm planning on giving her a call or two.

 

 

Just fired off an angry email myself. Planning on leaving her a couple of voicemails this weekend as well. And I just found out she has an office here in humble Kearney... may be swinging by and giving them a visit...

 

Also, I called and left the Senate Committee on Homeland Security a message asking them politely but firmly to remove Bannon from the NSC. I type up and email and fired off to every Republican on that Committee. I'd recommend doing so yourself if you have the time - apparently they're tallying the calls they receive in opposition to Bannon. Here's a story with all the contact info.

All of this may lead to nothing, but I refuse to just sit idly by while people like these get thrust into positions of power that affect all of us...

 

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

Action Item For SCOTUS Nomination (copied & pasted from Indivisible Guide):

 

The vacancy that resulted from Justice Scalia’s death last spring should have been filled by President Obama. In fact, he tried to do just that. President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland, a supremely well-qualified and reasonable jurist to fill the vacancy. Senate Republican leadership, in an unprecedented breach of protocol, refused to even hold hearings, let alone a vote, on the President’s nominee! That obstructionism is the ONLY reason why Donald Trump has a vacancy to fill today.

 

Together, let’s make sure that Donald Trump and Republican leaders aren’t rewarded for their obstructionism.

Call your Senator today and tell them you don’t support Donald Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court.

SAMPLE CALL DIALOGUE:

You: Good morning/afternoon. I’m a constituent of Senator Xxx’s and I’m calling to ask what his position is on President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court.

Option 1: Opposes Gorsuch for Supreme Court

You: Great! I’m so glad to hear that. I firmly believe this vacancy should have been filled by President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland. I’m pleased to hear the Senator will oppose this nominee and hope they will do so with any other nominee with a track-record in opposition to our values.

And since Senator Bob is opposed to the nominee, will he do everything in his power to prevent Gorsuch from being seated, including using the filibuster?

Thank you very much. I look forward to having the Senator do everything in their power to defeat this nominee.

Option 2: Supports Gorsuch for Supreme Court

You: Thank you for letting me know that. Will the Senator publicly pledge that the Judge Gorsuch will only be confirmed to the Supreme Court if he receives a filibuster-proof majority (60 votes) in the full Senate?

Is Senator Bob is open to using the “Nuclear Option” to end the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees? If that’s true, this is a shocking departure from centuries-old norms. This should be a simple question: Can you give me a yes or no answer on whether the Senator opposes the Nuclear Option?

Please let the Senator know that I expect him to uphold the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. In the history of our country, every single justice to sit on the Supreme Court has received the approval of a filibuster proof majority. This is a vital check-and-balance in our democracy, and an important function of the United States Senate. I will be watching closely what the Senator does on this issue and will cast my vote accordingly.

Option 3: Wait and See

Staffer: The Senator is withholding their judgement on Judge Gorsuch until the nomination process has run its course.

If Democratic Office

You: That is disappointing to hear. Judge Merrick Garland, who President Obama nominated and who under normal circumstances should have been confirmed, was never afforded that treatment. I expect the Senator to take a firm stance on nominees, like Judge Gorsuch, who sit far outside the judicial mainstream.

Staffer: Thank you for your message, I’ll pass it on to the Senator.

You: Thank you. I hope Senator Bob will reconsider his position, oppose Judge Gorsuch, and work to defeat his nomination.

If Republican Office

You: Thank you for letting me know that. Will the Senator publicly pledge that the Judge Gorsuch will only be confirmed to the Supreme Court if he receives a filibuster-proof majority (60 votes) in the full Senate?

Staffer: We haven’t reached that point yet in the process [Or other word salad]

You: Are you telling me that Senator Bob is open to using the “Nuclear Option” to end the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees? If that’s true, this is a shocking departure from centuries-old norms. This should be a simple question: Can you give me a yes or no answer on whether the Senator opposes the Nuclear Option?

Staffer: The Senator hasn’t taken a position on that issue.

You: Please let the Senator know that I expect him to uphold the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. In the history of our country, every single justice to sit on the Supreme Court has received the approval of a filibuster proof majority. This is a vital check-and-balance in our democracy, and an important function of the United States Senate. I will be watching closely what the Senator does on this issue and will cast my vote accordingly.

Staffer: I’ll pass that message on to the Senator.

You: Thank you.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISION TERMINATION ACT ACTION (from Indivisible):

 

The House recently passed out of committee the “Electoral Assistance Commission Termination Act” (HR 634), which would eliminate the Electoral Assistance Commission (EAC), the only institution that oversees the security of voting systems, and states’ compliance with federal voting registration laws. At a time when we know of foreign interference with our election system, and when many states are trying everything they can to keep certain people from voting, this bill weakens another of our democratic institutions.

SAMPLE CALL DIALOGUE

Caller: Good morning/afternoon! Can you let me know position on the Electoral Assistance Commission Termination Act, HR 634?

OPTION 1: OPPOSES HR 634 [MEANING THEY SUPPORT THE EAC]


Caller: That’s great! At a time when we know of threats to our voting systems and when our voting rights are under attack, we can’t eliminate the EAC. The EAC is the only institution we have to verify the integrity of our voting equipment, and it’s the only institution that checks whether states fulfill the minimum obligations to allow citizens to register to vote. If really cares about our voting rights like I do, I hope he makes a strong statement against this bill, and votes against it at every stage of the process.

OPTION 2: SUPPORTS HR 634 [MEANING THEY OPPOSE THE EAC]

Caller: That’s terrible to hear. Just in this election, we know of attempts by foreign powers to hack into our election systems. Russian cybercriminals already attempted to access state voter registration systems, and insecure voting machines can place our democracy at serious risk, at the very least risking a loss of public faith in our elections. Securing our voting infrastructure is a critical issue, and we cannot trust vague promises to turn over the EAC’s duties to the Federal Election Commission, which only monitors campaign finance violations. The EAC also makes sure that states are fulfilling their basic obligations to let people register to vote in a clear and uncomplicated way. Many states are already trying to keep people from exercising their democratic rights -- we can’t trust them to do the right thing without supervision.

OPTION 3: DODGES / HAS NO POSITION


Caller: That’s disappointing to hear--this is very import issue for the integrity of our voting processes, and the ability of citizens to register to vote. By eliminating the Electoral Assistance Commission, Congress is eliminating the one institution that has oversight over the testing and certification of voting systems to ensure each state’s chosen voting technology will in fact work on election day. It seems that politicians are looking for another under-the-table way to undermine our democracy.

Please pass along to that he/she needs to protect our voting rights, not undermine them. I expect to do two things to prove that he/she is on my side here:

1. Publicly state his opposition to HR 634

2. Vote against it, in any form, in any stage of the democratic process.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

SUPPORT LEGISLATION INTRODUCED IN SENATE AND HOUSE TO GET BANNON OUT OF NSC ROLE (pasted from Indivisible)

 

In January, Donald Trump signed a presidential memorandum giving the white nationalist and political operator Steve Bannon a full seat on the “principals committee” of the National Security Council. At the same time, Trump removed the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) as regular attendees.

 

This unprecedented move to permanently put a right-wing political agitator with minimal national security experience in the Situation Room, while excluding high-ranking intelligence and military officials, raises serious questions about the integrity of the National Security Council’s decision-making and places all of us at risk.

Legislation introduced in the Senate (S. 291) and the House (H.R. 804) would ensure that political operators like Steve Bannon are excluded from the National Security Council and that national security experts are the ones making life-and-death decisions about our national security.

Call your Senators/Representative today and tell them to cosponsor legislation to keep Steve Bannon out of the Situation Room and ensure that national security decisions are not influenced by political considerations.

SAMPLE CALL DIALOGUE

Caller: Good morning/afternoon! I’m a constituent and I’m calling to ask what Senator/Representative Bob’s position is on Trump’s changes to the National Security Council?

Option 1: OPPOSES TRUMP’S ACTION ELEVATING STEVE BANNON TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL

Caller: That’s great! I’m calling to say that if Senator/Representative Bob truly believes, as I do, that Steve Bannon does not belong on the National Security Council, then he should take steps to make it law. Will he/she commit to cosponsoring S. 291/H.R. 804 to clarify the permanent membership of the National Security Council to better ensure that national security decisions are not clouded by political calculations?

Option 2: SUPPORTS TRUMP’S ACTION ELEVATING STEVE BANNON TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL

Caller: That’s terrible. What that means is Senator/Representative Bob is choosing politics over national security. It means that Steve Bannon, rather than the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will be making life-and-death decisions for millions of service members and intelligence agents around the world. Does the Senator/Representative really believe that Steve Bannon should be helping make our most consequential national security decisions over the next four years?

Bannon’s role is to ask what is best for the president’s political interests rather than what is best for our nation’s security. Neither President Obama nor President Bush gave a permanent seat to their chief strategists. What does Steve Bannon have to contribute to discussions about national security?

Option 3: DODGES / HAS NO POSITION

Caller: That’s disappointing to hear--this is an important issue for millions of Americans, myself included. Steve Bannon has no expertise to contribute to discussions about national security and he should not have a role on the National Security Council. His role is to ask what is best for the president’s political interests rather than what is best for our nation’s security. Does the Senator/Representative really have no position on whether Steve Bannon should be helping make our most consequential national security decisions over the next four years?

Here’s my concern: It’s dangerous to exclude the top intelligence and military officials from the most consequential decisions affecting national security and even more dangerous to insert a political operator such as Bannon into the process. I expect Senator/Representative Bob to represent and help protect his constituents like me when decisions are being made about our nation’s security rather than Trump’s political interests. I expect Senator/Representative Bob to do two things to prove that he is on my side:

1. Publicly oppose Bannon having permanent membership in the NSC’s “principals committee.”

2. Co-sponsor S. 291/H.R. 804 to clarify the permanent membership of the National Security Council to better ensure that national security decisions are not clouded by political calculations.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

PHONE CALL TO JASON CHAFFETZ (Chair of House Oversight & Reform) TO EXPRESS NEED TO INVESTIGATE TRUMP TIES TO FLYNN AND RUSSIA AS WELL AS TAX RELEASE

 

Reach out to Jason Chaffetz, ® Congressman from Utah, and Chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Jason feels that there is no investigation needed into Trumps taxes, and more recently isn't concerned about looking into Flynns resignation and Trump ties to Russia.

Asking questions instead of making statements is crucial to keeping the staff on the phone and engaged.
His offices can be reached via the phone at:
202-225-7751 (edit/addition: Hit #2 then #1 to leave a vm)
801-851-2500
Tell him:
1. You'd like to understand why he has chosen to not further explore Trump's obvious conflicts of interest and financial ties via his tax returns or other investigative initiatives. He is in obvious and flagrant violation of the Emoluments Clause of the constitution.
2. Why isn't he opening an immediate, urgent investigation into Flynn's ties to Russia? Who knew what when? What evidence is there showing other WH members involvement.
DO YOUR JOB MR CHAFFETZ.
  • Fire 2
Link to comment

PHONE CALL TO DEVIN NUNES CHAIRMAN OF HOUSE SELECT INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE

 

 

Call the House Intelligence Committee Majority (Republican) comment line to tell Nunes and the Republicans

 

1) that you are outraged at Nunes' statement of support of Mike Flynn (see contact info below) Before Flynn resigned, Nunes said, "It just seems like there's a lot of nothing there." Afterward, Nunes said he wanted to know why the FBI was recording a then-private citizen's phone calls.

 

2) to open a formal investigation into Russia's influence over Trump et. al.

 

The number for the majority House Intel line is 202-225-4121.

 

Please read the WaPo attached article for more background - this should anger every American. Take 3 mins to make a call! https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/14/fbi-needs-to-explain-why-michael-flynn-was-recorded-gop-intelligence-chairman-says/?utm_term=.6eadc6f61654

 

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

PHONE CALL TO REQUEST SPECIAL RUSSIA/TRUMP INVESTIGATOR AND TO REQUEST THAT AG SESSIONS RECUSE HIMSELF FROM PROCEEDINGS ON THIS TOPIC:

 

If you think the DOJ needs to appoint a special Russia/Trump investigator and/or that AG Sessions needs to recuse himself from the proceedings, here's the number to call: Department of Justice Public Comment Line: 202-353-1555.

 

This is a public comment line, where you leave a voicemail message.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

PHONE CALL TO YOUR STATE REPS TO MAKE SURE THEY KNOW YOUR DESIRE FOR AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATIONS' TIES TO RUSSIA:

 

Use the following website to confirm your reps and find out their contact info. https://www.govtrack.us

 

Script:

Hi, My name is Xxxxxx and I'm calling from (City & state). I am one of your constituents.

I'm calling to express my support for a comprehensive and independent investigation of the Trump administrations' ties to Russia; including testimony from former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

Thank you for your hard work answering the phones.

(If you end up on VM make sure to leave your name, address city & state clearly so that they can tally your call)

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

SIGN INTO WWW.5CALLS.ORG TO DO 5 CALLS THIS WEEK

 

This website allows you to punch in your zip code and gives you a list of issues in your area/nationally. You select what's important to you and up pops the name and telephone number of who to call. If also gives you a script to use.

 

www.5calls.org

 

You can also sign up to get weekly updates so that you're always engaging.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

URGENT CALL TO ACTION - LEAVE VM RE: OPPOSITION TO BANNON ON NSC

 

The Senate Committee on Homeland Security is inviting comment and COUNTING CALLS before it decides whether to approve Steve Bannon's appointment to the National Security Council.

Call 202-224-4751. (You don't have to talk to anyone. Just say: "Hi my name is ______. I am from ____[give your state] and am an American citizen. I oppose Steve Bannon being confirmed to sit on our National Security Council."

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

URGENT CALL TO ACTION (by 2/28) - CONNECTICUT ELECTION

(share w/folks you know that live there - volunteer to make calls from afar if you don't)

 

(Feb 25 - 28)

One of THE most important things we can do to support the resistance is to work with and support people who are running in local and state races to either preserve or create a Democratic majority in legislative Houses and Senates around the country. CODE BLUE (CB) is an organization that is focused on mobilizing people around such urgent issues.

From the CODE BLUE site:
Goal: Support Greg Cava for Senator in District 32 Connecticut.

WHAT'S AT STAKE? If the republicans win this district Connecticut's State Senate will remain deadlocked at 50/50. The Lt. Governor has already had to cast multiple tie-breaking votes. The only way democrats can retain their majority is with a win in this district. THAT'S INSANE! This would be yet another predominantly blue state being overrun and held back republicans.

Summary of the CB Game Plan: https://www.codeblue.team/ctgameplan/
.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
1) Quick & Easy: Copy and paste this to share with your network of friends so that anyone you might know in CT is aware of this race.
2) If you really want to make a difference: The CB team is looking for volunteers to phone bank for Cava. You don't have to live in CT, you just need access to a phone and CB can set you up with a remote dialing tool that will make it easy. Sign up here to get more info: https://docs.google.com/…/1FAIpQLScelzW4IGrGLGS2lv…/viewform
.
Additional Info:
- More About Greg Cava: https://www.codeblue.team/candidate-profile-greg-cava-32nd…/
- If you're sharing with friends (for which we thank you!!), please remember to COPY and P
ASTE.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...