The Trump administration has signaled to the Smithsonian Institution that the White House could withhold federal funding from the museum organization if it does not comply with the administration’s un...

The president’s latest speech to the nation had all the demented energy of one of Hitler’s Nuremberg rallies.

Text SIGN PPVIZW to 50409 — I am writing to demand that you take clear, public, and unequivocal action against personalized (selective) pricing—the practice of charging different people different prices for the same goods or services based on surveillance, profiling, or inferred willingness to pay. This practice is fundamentally unfair, deeply predatory, and incompatible with basic principles of ethical commerce and democratic accountability. Personalized pricing requires unprecedented and invasive surveillance of constituents. Companies monitor individuals’ behavior, location, devices, purchasing history, urgency, and inferred income or vulnerability to extract the maximum possible price from each person. This is not ordinary market behavior. It is covert behavioral manipulation enabled by constant data collection. To be clear about the harm: two constituents standing next to each other, buying the same airline ticket, prescription delivery, or household item, can be charged different prices solely because one searched longer, used an older phone, appeared more desperate, or had fewer alternatives. That is not efficiency. It is exploitation. This practice destroys price transparency, undermines fair competition, and quietly transfers wealth out of your constituents’ pockets and into corporate margins—without their knowledge or consent. Markets cannot function honestly when prices are hidden, individualized, and unverifiable. Personalized pricing cannot exist without surveillance. To tolerate it is to accept that Americans must be continuously monitored simply to pay a fair price. That tradeoff is unacceptable. Equal prices for equal goods are a basic expectation of a fair market, not a privilege contingent on data extraction. Charging people different prices for the same goods—without transparency, consent, or cost justification—is inherently wrong. Doing so through pervasive surveillance makes it worse, not better. This is not a hypothetical concern. It is already happening, quietly and at scale. And silence from lawmakers is not neutrality—it is permission. This is a line-in-the-sand moment: either we defend transparent markets and equal treatment, or we accept a surveillance economy where fairness is replaced by extraction. I am asking you to do the following—clearly and without ambivalence: 1. Publicly declare personalized (selective) pricing to be unethical and unacceptable. No hedging. No quiet statements. 2. Support and advance legislation that bans or strictly limits individualized consumer pricing, particularly when driven by surveillance, behavioral profiling, or opaque algorithms. 3. Affirm that equal prices for equal goods are a baseline requirement of a fair market, and that surveillance-based price manipulation has no place in a democratic economy. Federal and state consumer-protection law already recognizes that unfair, opaque practices causing unavoidable consumer harm are unlawful. Personalized pricing fits squarely within that framework. Silence on this issue will be interpreted as consent, and constituents will draw their own conclusions accordingly. The time to act is now. Not later. Not quietly. Not conditionally. I expect clear public opposition—and I will be watching for it.

Text SIGN PXKVGP to 50409 — I am writing as a constituent to condemn President Donald Trump’s failure to comply with federal law requiring the full release of the Jeffrey Epstein files, and to demand immediate legislative action in response. The law Congress passed and President Trump signed was unambiguous: the Trump administration had 30 days to release all Epstein-related files. Not some. Not a curated subset. All of them. Failing to do so is a clear violation of the law. No president is above the law. When a president openly defies a statute, Congress has a constitutional duty to act. Silence in the face of lawbreaking is not neutrality—it is consent. This matter goes beyond partisanship. It goes to the heart of democratic accountability, the rule of law, and the protection of children from sexual exploitation. When elected officials remain silent while a president withholds legally mandated disclosures tied to documented sex crimes, that silence speaks loudly. History does not look kindly on complicity. You were elected to serve the people—not to shield executive lawlessness. I am demanding that you: 1. Publicly acknowledge that the law has been violated. 2. Support or initiate immediate oversight and enforcement actions. 3. Back impeachment proceedings if compliance is not immediate and complete. 4. Use all lawful tools available to compel full release of the Epstein files without redaction or delay. Failure to act signals tolerance of corruption and abuse of power. Constituents are watching, and history will record who defended the law—and who chose silence. I expect a clear public position and concrete action

Text SIGN PQDGFA to 50409 — I am writing as a constituent to urge you to publicly oppose any attempt by President Trump to declare war on Venezuela or to initiate new military action against that country. Engaging in war to serve a president’s political needs is absolutely obscene. It violates the Constitution, disregards Congress’s sole authority to declare war, and puts lives at risk for no legitimate national-security purpose. This is not what Americans do, and it is not who we are. The United States does not need to bully other nations to prove strength. Real leadership is demonstrated through restraint, diplomacy, and respect for international law—not reckless escalation. Military intervention in Venezuela would only deepen humanitarian suffering, destabilize the region, and damage America’s credibility worldwide. I ask you to make a clear, public statement opposing any war or military intervention involving Venezuela, and to actively encourage your colleagues in Congress to do the same. Silence in moments like this is not neutrality—it is permission. Please use your authority to defend the Constitution, uphold congressional war powers, and prevent yet another unnecessary and destructive conflict.

The Trump administration says in a court filing that the president’s White House ballroom construction project must continue for unexplained national security reasons.

Text SIGN PNHBLI to 50409 — I am writing to urge your support for the Visible Identification Standards for Immigration-Based Law Enforcement (VISIBLE) Act of 2025, introduced by Senators Alex Padilla and Cory Booker. This legislation is essential to restore transparency, accountability, and public trust in immigration enforcement operations. Under current practices, federal immigration agents have increasingly conducted public-facing operations while wearing unmarked tactical gear and concealing their identities. This lack of visible identification endangers public safety, creates fear and confusion, and increases risks for both the public and law enforcement personnel. Reports from Los Angeles County—where plainclothes, masked agents have detained individuals without identifying themselves—highlight the urgent need for reform. The VISIBLE Act would: • Require all immigration enforcement officers to display clear identification, including agency name and badge number or name, visible above tactical gear. • Prohibit non-medical face coverings that obscure identity during public-facing operations. • Mandate DHS establish disciplinary procedures, report annually to Congress on compliance, and investigate complaints via the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. This legislation ensures that enforcement actions are conducted with transparency, protecting both the public and officers, and reinforcing trust between communities and law enforcement. I urge you to support the VISIBLE Act to strengthen oversight and safeguard public confidence in immigration enforcement.

Text SIGN PADGIZ to 50409 — I am writing to demand action against white domestic terrorist and hate groups that continue to threaten public safety in the United States. America has always named its enemies when they come from outside our borders. Foreign threats are clearly labeled, investigated, and prosecuted. But when violence comes from within—especially from white extremist groups—the response is often weak or silent. This is not a political opinion. Federal agencies, including the FBI and Department of Homeland Security, have repeatedly warned that white extremist violence is the deadliest form of domestic terrorism in our country. These groups are responsible for more politically motivated killings than any other domestic group in modern U.S. history. Despite this, they are often described as “protesters” or “militias” instead of what they are. Their violence is treated as isolated incidents rather than part of an ongoing pattern. This double standard allows these groups to grow, organize openly, and continue harming people. Silence from leaders sends the wrong message. When government officials refuse to clearly name this threat, it weakens public trust and puts communities at risk. I am asking you to: • Publicly recognize white domestic terrorism as a serious national security threat • Support laws that allow stronger investigation and prosecution of domestic terrorist groups • Ensure law enforcement applies the law equally, without bias or excuses • Reject language that minimizes or justifies extremist violence No group should be above the law. Public safety and equal justice require clear leadership and accountability. I expect a written response explaining your position and the steps you will take.

Text SIGN PCNHAB to 50409 — Facts matter—especially when government officials define threats and shape national security policy. During testimony before the House Homeland Security Committee, FBI National Security Operations Director Michael Glasheen failed to clearly state whether “Antifa” exists as an organization. This is not a disputed question in federal threat assessments. Antifa is not an organization; it is an ideology or loosely affiliated movement, not a structured entity with leadership, membership rolls, or centralized command. Former FBI Director Christopher Wray testified under oath that Antifa is “more of an ideology or a movement than an organization.” Federal analyses from the Department of Homeland Security have similarly described Antifa as a label used by individuals acting on shared beliefs, not as a coordinated organization. There is no credible evidence supporting the existence of Antifa as an organization. Treating an ideology as an organization mischaracterizes the threat landscape, misleads the public, and undermines sound policymaking. By the same standard, there is no proof that Santa Claus exists as an organization—no officers, no headquarters, no chain of command. Belief or repetition does not create organizational reality. When a senior national security official cannot clearly articulate this basic, well-documented distinction, it raises serious concerns about competence, preparedness, and candor. Intelligence and law-enforcement work depend on precision. Ambiguity where facts are settled erodes public trust and weakens congressional oversight. For these reasons, a formal review of Michael Glasheen’s competence and fitness for his role is warranted. Additionally, in the interest of transparency and evidence-based governance, I call on legislators to publicly state whether they believe Antifa is an actual organization, or whether they accept the documented conclusions of the FBI and DHS. Clear public statements grounded in facts are essential to restoring trust and ensuring that national security decisions are informed by reality rather than rhetoric. National security policy must be guided by evidence, not belief. Anything less undermines democratic accountability. Respectfully,

Text SIGN PCUPPQ to 50409 — Facts matter—especially in national security. During testimony before the House Homeland Security Committee, FBI National Security Operations Director Michael Glasheen failed to give a clear answer about whether “Antifa” exists as an organization. This is not a complex or unsettled question. Antifa is not an organization, and U.S. law enforcement has said so repeatedly. The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security have long concluded that “Antifa” is an ideology or loosely affiliated movement, not a structured entity with leadership, membership rolls, funding mechanisms, or command authority. Former FBI Director Christopher Wray testified plainly that Antifa is “more of an ideology than an organization.” No credible federal assessment contradicts this. There is no evidentiary basis for treating Antifa as an organization. Belief does not equal proof. Repetition does not create structure. By the same standard, there is no proof that Santa Claus exists as an organization either—no officers, no headquarters, no chain of command. An idea, a label, or a myth does not become an organization simply because people invoke its name. When a senior FBI official cannot clearly state this established fact, the issue is not semantics—it is professional competence. Mischaracterizing an ideology as an organization undermines threat analysis, misleads lawmakers, and risks misuse of federal authority. Intelligence work depends on precision. Ambiguity where facts are settled is unacceptable. This is not partisan. It is about accuracy, credibility, and fitness for duty. Congressional oversight relies on truthful, fact-based testimony. The public relies on federal officials to distinguish evidence from political narrative. For these reasons, a formal review of Director Glasheen’s preparedness, accuracy, and suitability for a national security leadership role is warranted. National security demands clarity. Anything less erodes trust and weakens democratic oversight

Text SIGN PGZMGY to 50409 — Recent actions by former President Donald J. Trump—including attempts to pardon individuals charged under Arizona state law for submitting false electoral certificates—constitute a blatant abuse of power and a direct threat to the rule of law. These pardons exceed constitutional authority, which applies only to federal crimes, and represent an attempt to shield unlawful conduct from accountability. This behavior is part of a larger pattern of criminal, authoritarian, and anti-democratic actions aimed at undermining lawful elections, obstructing justice, and destabilizing constitutional governance. Allowing these actions to go unchallenged endangers the foundation of American democracy and sets a dangerous precedent: that those in power can evade consequences for illegal acts. Congress must take immediate, decisive steps to protect the rule of law: 1. Conduct thorough oversight into the attempted abuse of pardon powers and other anti-democratic actions. 2. Reaffirm and codify the limits of presidential authority to prevent future violations. 3. Support state and local authorities in enforcing lawful prosecutions free from interference. Failure to act now risks normalizing lawlessness at the highest levels of government and undermining public trust in our institutions. The Constitution demands accountability—no one is above the law.

YouTube video by Democracy Now!