Occupy ROTH Army

[Nitro Express]

The vandalism and fires sounds like the "anarchists" (with CIA badges) finally showed up. Just like they did in Seattle in 1999.

The 1% is getting scared shitless, and the CIA has always been their tool. Even Harry Truman said so.

I never could figure out why they always put the armed thugs on the streets during the G20 and yeah in Seattle those clearly were fake, paid vandals.

They would love to set something off and have another cry of terrorism. They can clamp down and take more rights with that. Too many thugs in power in our government to pass that up and I wouldn't put it past them to try and start something.

To be honest, in the early stages of these protests the people were very far from being violent. Pretty passive actually. I think the police were targeting women to hit and spray to try and set the crowd off. They have guns the crowd doesn't. I think the crowd was just too passive. So what now we can't set off New York so maybe we need to send in some paid antagonizers. Sounds nuts but we live in nutty times.

[FORD]

One of the clearest messages of the Occupy Movement is the need to repeal Shittyzens United. This is now getting a serious hearing in the Senate, and that spineless coward Harry Reid better not fuck this up......

Citizens United Going Down? Democrats Introduce Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Ruling


First Posted: 11/1/11 03:40 PM ET Updated: 11/2/11 10:21 AM ET
React

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court may treat corporations like people who can spend whatever they want on elections, but the American people don't have to accept it, said Democratic senators who proposed a constitutional amendment Tuesday to retake control of campaign spending.

The amendment, introduced by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), doesn't directly address the justices' legal finding that corporations have a right to free speech that was curtailed by election law. Instead, it would add to the Constitution language that says Congress and the states can regulate campaign contributions and expenditures.

The amendment would effectively reverse two landmark Supreme Court decisions -- the 1976 ruling in Buckley v. Valeo, which said spending money in elections is a form of speech, and the 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which ruled it unconstitutional to regulate the money spent to influence elections by corporations and unions.

The Citizens United ruling has unleashed a flood of cash from corporations and super PACs, which can spend as much as they want and do so nearly in secret.

"Letting this go unchecked is a threat to our democracy. Campaigns should be about the best ideas, not the biggest checkbooks," Udall said at the press conference.

The amendment has three main focuses: to authorize Congress to regulate the raising and spending of money for federal political campaign contributions and expenditures (including independent expenditures), to allow states to regulate that raising and spending at their level, and to permit Congress to pass campaign finance reform legislation that could withstand constitutional challenges. It does not specify what the reforms should be.

Also at the press conference, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a co-sponsor of the proposed amendment, called the Buckley case "one of the worst decisions that the Supreme Court has rendered in the last hundred years" and described the Citizens United ruling as "Buckley on steroids."

A constitutional amendment could be a welcome proposal for the thousands of demonstrators involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement, which holds a reversal of the Citizens United ruling as one of its oft-repeated demands.

"The extent to which money and corporations have taken over the [campaign] process is reflected across our cities in the Occupy movement," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), another co-sponsor. "It is something we have to do something about if we are going to reclaim American democracy as the shining light to other countries that it has always been."

The amendment faces a long, unlikely path even to win initial congressional approval. Senate Republicans last year opposed a Schumer measure, the Disclose Act, that would have just required more disclosure about campaign spenders.

Link

Have to say I'm surprised to see Schumer standing up for anything against predatory capitalism, but maybe his name attached to the bill can help Reid find his nutsack and pass this fucker

[BigBadBrian]

One of the more interesting aspects of this movement has been the rampant use of phones to video, photo and upload content to the internet. Videos and photos go viral, and the internet goes to work.

Police officers caught engaging in violent acts against protestors are rapidly identified by the internet. Right now, it's getting certain officers suspended, but there are elements of the internet that, if so inclined, could (and would) dig up all personal info they could on these people and post it publicly. It's not a far jump from there (as this happens often when personal information is posted) for people all over the country and world to use that personal info to make the lives of these people a living hell.

Then it's a wonderful thing that police forces all across the nation are covering their name badges and wearing riot gear and helmets to cover their identity when the time comes to confront these protesters, huh? There's nothing in the US Constitution, the same document giving these protesters the right to protest, saying police officers need to be able to be identified by name when there is an obvious attempt to prevent them from doing their jobs.

:happy64: :happy64:

We ask a OPD officer why he had his name badge covered.... from BLK PXLS on Vimeo.

[jhale667]

Then it's a wonderful thing that police forces all across the nation are covering their name badges and wearing riot gear and helmets to cover their identity when the time comes to confront these protesters, huh? There's nothing in the US Constitution, the same document giving these protesters the right to protest, saying police officers need to be able to be identified by name when there is an obvious attempt to prevent them from doing their jobs.

You WAKE UP every morning thinking "how can I prove myself to be an EVEN BIGGER IDIOT today", don't you? You moronic fucktard. You seriously think any cop that's covering their badge is doing it for HONORABLE reasons? The overzealous cops that assaulted peaceful protesters (don't even fucking try to deny it's happened) are getting NAILED for it - as well they should. The good Dr.'s example is the worst-case-nuclear scenario - I seriously doubt any cop will be hounded after this is over. But the ones NOT doing their jobs, pepper-spraying unarmed women for no reason, kicking someone's as JUST for filming their misconduct - no matter how you try to (and fail) spin it otherwise - SHOULD be held accountable.

[Dr. Love]

Then it's a wonderful thing that police forces all across the nation are covering their name badges and wearing riot gear and helmets to cover their identity when the time comes to confront these protesters, huh? There's nothing in the US Constitution, the same document giving these protesters the right to protest, saying police officers need to be able to be identified by name when there is an obvious attempt to prevent them from doing their jobs.

:happy64: :happy64:

We ask a OPD officer why he had his name badge covered.... from BLK PXLS on Vimeo.

Mixed feelings -- don't want cops to be harassed undeservedly, but at the same time, don't want them to have carte blanche to abuse powers.

[Dr. Love]

http://occupywallst.org/article/occupy-wall-street-obama-dont-be-big-banks-puppet-/

Don't Be Big Banks' Puppet; No Immunity Deal for Crooks
Posted Nov. 4, 2011, 11:28 a.m. EST by OccupyWallSt

To help expose the looming cash-for-immunity deal between the Obama administration and big banks, there will be a march from Liberty Square to the U.S. Court House Building at Foley Square on November 5th.

The march will gather at 2:00pm on the east side steps at Liberty Square (Zuccotti Park), and will arrive at Foley Square at 3:00pm. Join the Facebook event page

President Obama is on the brink of cutting a backroom deal that would give bankers broad immunity for illegally throwing tens of thousands of Americans out of their homes. The Administration is pressuring state attorneys general to abandon an ongoing investigation into the massive "robo-signing" fraud, in exchange for a relatively small payoff by the banks.



Numerous investigations by state and federal authorities have demonstrated that banks used illegal procedures to make tens of thousands of foreclosures over the past decade. Rushing to a settlement before the full extent of the fraud is known would be a grave injustice to those who were illegally foreclosed upon and those still struggling to stay in their homes.

“This is a clear, moral issue that cuts to the core of why we occupy,” said Max Berger, an Occupy Wall Street participant helping to plan the event. “Instead of throwing corrupt bankers in jail, the administration is pushing to give them a get-out-of jail-free card.”

“President Obama and the attorneys general have a choice: do they stand with Wall Street, or do they stand with the 99%?” he said.

The Occupy movement has spread throughout the country because the American people will no longer stand by while corporate and government elites strike back room deals to sell out the 99%. On a day when tens of thousands across America will take their money out of big banks, Occupy Wall Street will hold the political class accountable for doing Wall Street's bidding.

“We will not stand for a system that gives campaign contributors a right to immunity, while serving foreclosure papers to the 99%,” said Beth Bogart, a volunteer with Occupy Wall Street. “We will not stand for a country where bankers that issued deadly mortgage-backed securities are bailed out, but homeowners with mortgages are illegally thrown out on the street.”

At New York’s Foley Square, the Occupy movement will stand with those on the front lines of the economic collapse in their struggle against the banks and the politicians who do the banks' bidding. We will join in solidarity with those who have lost their homes to Wall Street greed and political corruption.

We won't let Obama get away with being Wall Street's puppet.

[ashstralia]

CACA,

haha, noted that too PB! perhaps a less hilarious acronym would be better...

[Blaze]

Ninnies!

[Blaze]

Quality of life issues, you might not be an issue.

[Kristy]

Fucking greedy corporations! They're going down, maaaaan.

[Nitro Express]

Who made Obama the sole lawmaker? He can sign bills into law but he can't make laws by himself. The executive branch is supposed to simply administer and manage the government while the congress makes the laws. He has no authority to cut deals or give anyone immunity without the congress voting on a bill that proposes those changes. Back room deals. So much for Obama's transparent government.

I say we slap Obama with an investigation into Fast and Furious and those Department of Energy loans to failed green companies that seem to have been laundering money. Oh and that real estate deal involving price fixing in Chicago. Of course the creep would never resign his office but maybe we can nail enough on him to arrest him. So let Biden finish the term. Not much of an improvement . But Obama is even going to alienate himself from his base. Those people in Occupy Wall Street are the last loyal people he has and he's pissing all over them.

I have a hunch Ron Paul will be getting a lot of Democrat votes. He's the only one running who will go after the bankers.

[ashstralia]

wow, thanks kristy! that's only the 734th time i've seen that image.

[Kristy]

Well, this makes it the 735, doesn't it?

[ashstralia]

only if i view it again.

[FORD]

I have a hunch Ron Paul will be getting a lot of Democrat votes. He's the only one running who will go after the bankers.

I don't know of a single Democrat who would even consider voting for Ron Paul with the current teabagger Congress. It would be a Randtard nightmare from which this country would NEVER recover. Post-Gorby Russia would look like a paradise compared to "The Disunited Absoulutely Unregulated Fascist States of Randtard AmeriKKKa".

Now give me 70 Russ Feingolds in the Senate and 300 Dennis Kuciniches and Alan Graysons in the House, and THEN I would consider a vote for Ron Paul.

Imperialism ended. "Federal" Reserve destroyed. Marijuana legalized. All good things.

Of course a President Paul would veto just about anything else they tried to pass, so sadly they wouldn't get the necessary restoration of FDR reforms done, and there would be likely little or no progress on the needed infrastructure of the 21st century.

But then, there would be no further addition to the 30 years of drain circling destruction of the country either.