Protestors rally outside Rep. Meuser's office
POTTSVILLE — Nearly 50 people on Thursday gathered outside the local office of U.S. Rep. Dan Meuser, R-9, to protest what they said is a lack of responsiveness to important questions and requests posed by his constituents.
The event, hosted by Schuylkill Indivisible and dubbed an 'Empty Chair' meeting, gave people a chance to voice their frustration with Meuser after he apparently ignored a request to hold an in-person town hall meeting with local constituents in March. Many protestors carried signs criticizing Meuser and President Donald Trump administration's policies. Using a megaphone, some members of the group asked questions they planned to submit to Meuser later, touching on topics such as the economy, Ukraine, mass deportations, federal spending cuts, the White House Press meetings and funding for infectious diseases.
'I have objections to Mr. Meuser because he never makes himself available to his constituents,' said Kris Norton, Pine Grove. 'He never has. He did meet with our Indivisible group years ago when he was first elected, but it took us months to get a seating with him.'
Norton has used Vote Smart to track Meuser's position on important policies. She said she found that Meuser consistently voted against measures during the Biden administration that would have boosted the local economy, employment and security in Schuylkill County.
'He can't say that he's for the constituents and the people of (the 9th District) when he doesn't do anything,' Norton said.
*
Michael Schroeder chants and holds up signs in front of the Pottsville office of U.S. Rep. Dan Meuser (R-9), Thursday, April 24, 2025. (MATTHEW PERSCHALL/MULTIMEDIA EDITOR)
*
Edward Zelonis speaks to the crowd in front of the Pottsville office of Rep. Dan Meuser (R-9), Thursday, April 24, 2025. (MATTHEW PERSCHALL/MULTIMEDIA EDITOR)
*
Claire Miller asks a question of U.S. Rep. Dan Meuser (R-9) outside his Pottsville office on Progress Avenue Thursday, April 24, 2025. (MATTHEW PERSCHALL/MULTIMEDIA EDITOR)
*
Protestors gather in front of the Pottsville office of U.S. Rep. Dan Meuser (R-9), Thursday, April 24, 2025. (MATTHEW PERSCHALL/MULTIMEDIA EDITOR)
*
Catherine Pasierb, Josephine Kwiatkowski and Rachel Keck sing 'Where Have all the Town Halls Gone?' in front of the Pottsville office of Congress member Dan Meuser (R-9), Thursday, April 24, 2025. (MATTHEW PERSCHALL/MULTIMEDIA EDITOR)
Show Caption
1 of 5
Michael Schroeder chants and holds up signs in front of the Pottsville office of U.S. Rep. Dan Meuser (R-9), Thursday, April 24, 2025. (MATTHEW PERSCHALL/MULTIMEDIA EDITOR)
Expand
The event also drew protestors from Berks and Lebanon counties, including members of Mondays with Meuser, a group that gathers weekly at the Lebanon County Courthouse demanding that Meuser meet with his constituents there in a town hall-like setting.
Laura Quick, a co-organizer of Mondays with Meuser, said she and other members of the group attended the event to show solidarity with their fellow constituents in the 9th District.
Claire Kempes, of Pottsville, said Meuser has not scheduled a meeting in response to Schuylkill Indivisible's request, but he did hold a telephonic town hall-style meeting. While he allowed callers to pose critical comments, he did not give them an opportunity to follow up on or dispute his talking points at that meeting, Kempes said.
Among her many questions for Meuser, Kempes asked about President Trump defying the recent Supreme Court order on the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
'Why aren't you advocating for the administration to take assertive steps in returning Kilmar Abrego Garcia?' she wrote. 'Why wasn't he and all of the others provided 'due process'?'
Sue Leiby, of Hamburg, said the event was one of several protests she's participated in. She carried a sign with an ominous message for Meuser, stating that some of his 'MAGA' followers will turn on him when 'Grandma loses her Social Security; their kids die from preventable illnesses; they lose their jobs and homes; no teachers are here to teach their kids; and food is unsafe because the inspectors were fired.'
Many motorists passing through the demonstration on Progress Avenue honked their horns or gave a thumbs up in approval.
No one from Meuser's office staff was present at the demonstration Thursday. Josephine Kwiatkowski, a member of Schuylkill Indivisible, posted a note outside the office window, asking 'When will you answer your emails?'
Kwiatkowski prepared a number of lengthy questions for the congressman. In one, she referenced Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President J.D. Vance's recent statement that the U.S. should 'walk away' from ceasefire negotiations if Ukraine and Russia do not sign a peace deal soon. Another question was about the Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees Medicaid, proposing $880 billion in spending cuts. Kwiatkowski also noted the expensive aircraft and equipment used for mass deportations, asking Meuser if he would support an investigation into this 'fraud, waste and abuse.'
Throughout the demonstration, the group occasionally made call-and-response chants, such as 'Tell me what democracy looks like' / 'This is what democracy looks like.'
The event concluded with a recitation of 'Where Have All the Town Halls Gone?', an original song accusing the congressman of avoiding or silencing his constituents' voices.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
If he wages war unilaterally, Trump will only be the latest of many presidents to do so
Twenty-four years ago this week, I represented a group of bipartisan members of Congress in challenging the Obama administration's decision to attack Libya without a declaration of war. It is a curious anniversary of the litigation, because many of the politicians and pundits who supported (or remained silent on) the action of President Barack Obama are now appalled that President Trump is considering an attack on the Iranian nuclear facility at Fordow, which is buried deep in a mountain. Later, some Democratic members would move to expand presidential powers to launch attacks without approval. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), the drafter of the current legislation to limit Trump's authority, drafted legislation in 2018 to put the authorization for use of military force on virtual autopilot. That was during the first Trump administration, and I testified against that legislation as a virtual authorization for 'endless war.' In 2011, Obama approved a massive military campaign that not only attacked Libya's capital city but also armored columns of the Libyan military. The clear intent was regime change supported by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who also rejected the need to consult with Congress, let alone secure approval before launching a massive attack on another nation. Today, Trump is contemplating the use of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator or 'bunker buster' bomb, to destroy the facility. It may be the only weapon that can reach the underground enhancement areas, and it can only be delivered by American B-2 Spirit stealth bombers. It takes courage to oppose such actions by a president of your own party or against an unpopular foe. Notably, among my clients 24 years ago was Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), the father of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) who also believes that a president should secure approval of Congress before any such attack occurs. The other group that would demand such approval was the Framers themselves. They saw foreign entanglements and military interventions as the markings of despots and tyrants. At the Constitutional Convention, delegate Pierce Butler insisted that a president should not be able to 'make war but when the nation will support it.' Nevertheless, he did not even receive a second to his motion because the Framers demanded real checks on this power. They imposed that limit by only allowing the nation to go to war with the express declaration of Congress. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 states that the 'sole' authority to declare war rests with Congress. In 1793, George Washington supported the denial of this power to a president as a clear and binding promise that 'no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.' The Framers thought that they had solved the problem. In the Pennsylvania ratification convention, James Wilson explained the need for congressional approval as a guarantee that no one will 'hurry us into war [since] it is calculated to guard against it.' The purpose of such approval is not just to limit foreign wars but to secure the support of the people before such wars are commenced. After all, presidents get the glory of wars, but citizens pay the cost in lives and treasure. Politicians, however, quickly became leery of taking such ownership over wars. Congress became increasingly passive in the face of popular military engagements, using ambiguous 'authorizations' to preserve the ability to later insist that they were never really in support of wars. While some of us opposed the Iraq War, politicians like then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) were all-in on the invasion. Yet, when he ran for president, Biden insisted that he had opposed the long, drawn-out war. Then there was Sen. John Kerry. During the Democratic primary in 2004, Kerry portrayed himself as against the Iraq War, even though he had also voted for it. Later, when confronted by George Bush in the general election over his vote against spending $87 billion to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, he offered his notorious response that 'I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it.' Despite the clear text of the Constitution, courts have repeatedly allowed this circumvention of Article I. Congress has only declared 11 wars while allowing more than 125 military operations, including Vietnam, Korea and Afghanistan. Congress has not declared war in the 80 years since World War II. In my case, the Obama administration would not even refer to an attack on another nation as a 'war.' It insisted that it was a 'time-limited, scope-limited military action,' or a 'kinetic action.' The court allowed the war to proceed. Both Congress and the courts have effectively amended the Constitution to remove the requirement of war declarations. As a result, the precedent favors Trump in arguing for his right to commit troops unilaterally. Whereas Kaine and others insist that there has been no attack by Iran on the U.S., Trump can cite the fact that Iran has killed or wounded thousands of Americans directly or through surrogates, including attacks on U.S. shipping through its Houthi proxy forces in Yemen. More importantly, he can cite decades of judicial and congressional acquiescence. For my part, I think the Framers were right then and they are right now. We have shown just how right they were with decades of undeclared wars and so little accountability. The fact that these actions are presumptively unconstitutional is an inconvenient fact buried in decades of war hype and hypocrisy. That is why Trump is unlikely to go to Congress and, as a matter of precedent, he does not have to. He will assume the same power his predecessors enjoyed, including recent Democratic presidents. With that history and politics on his side, Trump could turn Fordow into the most expensive hole in history. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of 'The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.'
Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: The answer to immigrant anxiety? ‘Seek legal entry to the U.S.'
To the editor: Words like 'fear,' 'terror,' 'desperation' and more make clear that people who may potentially be rounded up by federal law enforcement need resolution (''It's a risk to come to work': Terror and a touch of desperation in L.A.,' June 19). Given that the president, Congress or the U.S. Departments of Justice, Homeland Security and others are unlikely to change the laws or provide other relief, is it logical to continue evading or hiding? And for those who encourage and enable those without documents to stay, what is so humanitarian about that path? Isn't that another logical disconnect? There can be only one logical and humanitarian solution for immigrants and their enablers: Seek legal entry to the U.S., even if it begins with self-deporting. Raymond Roth, Oceanside .. To the editor: President Trump needs to immediately replace Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity and immigrant deportations with 'A Big Beautiful Immigrant Amnesty Program.' If he wants all immigrants documented, then he should help them get documents. Simply declare that if immigrants register online or by telephone immediately, they will not be deported and will be processed to receive green cards. While this would take time, it would end costly ICE activity, deportation expenses and deportations of law-abiding, employed families. It would end the enormous fear, uncertainty and suffering that is currently sweeping the immigrant population. It will end higher prices coming in construction, agriculture, caretaking and other industries using immigrant labor. If Trump and others cannot sleep at night because some immigrants lack a green card in their pocket, establishing a program to do that is what needs to be done. Richie Locasso, Hemet
Atlantic
3 hours ago
- Atlantic
How Tehran Might Be Playing Trump
President Donald Trump is being pulled toward war in the Middle East by his predator's eye for a victim's weakness and his ego's need to claim the work of others as his own. But since his 'unconditional surrender' social-media post on Tuesday, other Trump instincts have asserted themselves: above all, his fear of responsibility. Trump enjoys wielding power. He flinches from accountability. Days ago, Trump seemed to hunger for entry into Israel's war. A dramatic victory seemed poised to tumble into somebody's lap. Why not his? But as the hours passed, Trump reconsidered. Instead of acting, he postponed. He said that a decision would come within 'two weeks.' Time for diplomacy to work? Perhaps that might be the case in another administration. In this one, as attentive Trump watchers have learned, the 'two weeks' promise is a way of shirking a decision altogether, whether on Russia sanctions (deadline lapsed June 11, without action), trade deals (deadline lapsed June 12, without result), or a much-heralded infrastructure program (deadline lapsed May 20, 2017, without action then or ever). During his first term, Trump claimed to have taken the U.S. to the verge of war with Iran in the summer of 2019, only to cancel the mission (again, by his own account) 10 minutes before mission launch. The story, as Trump told it, can hardly have impressed the rulers of Iran with the U.S. president's commitment and resolve. But the experience of 2019 could suggest to the Iranian regime a strategy for 2025: Step 1: Absorb the Israeli strikes, as painful and humiliating as they are. Step 2: Mobilize Russian President Vladimir Putin to dissuade Trump from military action. Step 3: Agree to return to negotiations if Trump forces a cease-fire on Israel. Step 4: Dawdle, obfuscate, and generally play for time. Step 5: Reconstitute whatever remains of the Iranian nuclear program. This strategy would play on all of Trump's pressure points, especially his unwillingness to ever do anything that Putin does not want. It would leave Israel in the lurch, but over the years Trump has left many other allies like that. Trump is vulnerable to the negotiate-to-delay strategy because he has not taken any of the necessary steps to lead the nation into the war he once seemed ready to join. Trump has not asked Congress for any kind of authorization. The decision, he insists, will be his and his alone. Which will be feasible if the operation turns out as Ronald Reagan's invasion of Grenada did in 1983: over in a few days with few U.S. casualties and at minimal cost. But Grenada was a nearby island nation with a population of less than 100,000; Iran is a regional power with a population of more than 90 million. War with Iran will also need real money. The 78-day air war against Serbia in 1998 cost the U.S. and its NATO allies a comparatively modest $7 billion (about $14 billion in today's dollars). Iran is likely to prove a more dangerous enemy than Serbia was. Israel's air war against Iran costs about $1 billion a day, according to estimates published by Ynet News. A fight with Iran will likely require some kind of supplemental appropriation above the present defense budget. Congress may balk at funding a costly war it did not approve in the first place. Trump has not put competent leadership in charge of the nation's defense or domestic security. Trump's secretary of defense is accused by his own former advisers and friends of playacting a role that completely exceeds his abilities. If Iran retaliates with terror attacks inside the United States or on American interests abroad, it will find the U.S. desperately vulnerable. Trump purged experienced leaders from counterterrorism jobs. He installed underqualified culture warriors atop the FBI, and appointed at the Department of Homeland Security a cosplaying partisan who diverted $200 million of agency resources to a 'Thank You Trump' advertising campaign. Trump has not mobilized allies other than Israel. The United States has generally fought its major wars alongside coalition partners. Even Trump did so in his first term. France, the United Kingdom, and many other partners shouldered heavy burdens in the 2014–17 campaign in Syria and Iraq against the Islamic State terror group. But Trump did not assemble that coalition; he inherited it from the Obama administration. Trump shows no inclination to try assembling his own in 2025. Trump has not rallied domestic public opinion. Before this year, only a minority of Republicans and not even a third of Democrats regarded Iran as an important security threat to the United States. George W. Bush went to war in Iraq with almost three-quarters of Americans behind him. As late as the spring of 2006, half the country still supported Bush's war. Trump will begin a war with Iran with less support than Bush could muster after three years in Iraq. Nor does Trump have any evident path to broadening support. As my former Atlantic colleague Ronald Brownstein quips, Trump is governing as a wartime president, but the war into which he has led the country is red America's culture war against blue America: Even as Trump weighs the deployment of U.S. air power against Iran, he's leading a federal military occupation of California. Trump seems to recognize that he cannot unify the nation and therefore dares not lead it into any arduous or hazardous undertaking. That may be the secret self-awareness behind Trump's 'two weeks' hesitation. This is not a self-awareness that will help Israel or secure the United States' long-term interest in depriving Iran of a nuclear weapon. But in the absence of any strategic planning or preparedness, that self-awareness is all we have to guide the country through the next fortnight and, very possibly, a long succession of 'two weeks' after that.
